9 ms·

Matt is in large part mischaracterizing, although not outright lying about, the court's ruling. If you follow the link he provided to the ruling itself, many of

Matt is in large part mischaracterizing, although not outright lying about, the court's ruling. If you follow the link he provided to the ruling itself, many of the dismissed claims were dismissed "with leave to amend" (basically WPEngine has to fix their allegations), and one was dismissed for the reason that it should instead be asserted "as an affirmative defense if appropriate later in this litigation." There were some claims dismissed in a way WPEngine can't fix, but not many, and others were upheld. I have no connection to either side here, nor am I a lawyer, but I do know how to read a legal opinion. In case Matt removes the link to the actual ruling from his post, and also simply for HN readers' convenience, here it is: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69221176/169/wpengine-inc-v-automattic-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69221176/169/wpengine-i...

jalapenos 1y ago
So basically "please sue him right"?
3np 1y ago
Considering how obviously in the wrong he is, it might not be too off calling that a win for him.
nofriend 1y ago
Matt cites three claims that are dismissed (antitrust, monopolization, and extortion), which based on my skim are really two claims. The first, as you say, is dismissed with leave to amend. The second is dismissed without leave to amend. The first is given the opportunity to be amended, but the dismissal demonstrates serious flaws in the legal argument that they will have difficulty recovering from. I think it's fair for him to celebrate this as a win.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
gpm 1y ago
Just the claims where dismissal was outright denied are also potentially (up to judge and jury at later stages) enough for some pretty devastating damages... I second that this was a loss for Matt. It wasn't even "a draw" where the plaintiffs have to try again with an amended complaint (not that they will necessarily not bother to amend). > I have no connection to either side here, nor am I a lawyer, but I do know how to read a legal opinion. Describes me as well.
- echelon 1y ago
  I really don't get the engineers on HN sometimes. I get that Matt based WordPress on open source software initially, but 99% of the work that became what WordPress (and by extension, WP Engine) is today was done by him and his company. WP Engine contributes nothing back. They're just leaches on an open source license. They're doing what AWS and the other hyperscalers have done. Making bank on other people's hard work because "pure" open source allows for third party commercialization without compensation. (Or even giving back, as is with WP Engine's case. IIRC, they're not a top contributor to the open source code.) Shouldn't we be angry at the appropriators that take everything and give nothing back? AWS is 99.999% closed source. They're taxing the industry and contributing to increased centralization. Much of what made the early web so exciting has been hoovered up by these open source thieves. Google for taking WebKit, snatching the web, and then removing Manifest v2 amongst other crimes. Again - I think the community is attacking the wrong person here. Matt acted immaturely, but he's the one that put in the work. Not WP Engine.
  - gpm 1y ago
    No amount of altruism or engineering work entitles you to lie/cheat/extort/defame/... When you publish something under an open source license, you entitle the rest of the world to use it to get rich. That's what the license says on the tin, what the licenses have always been advertised, etc. I have absolutely no problem with AWS or WPEngine using that entitlement, nor do I have any problem with any software engineer (or software engineering organization like AWS) choosing not to publish source code they didn't promise to. Even if I wasn't of this opinion though - I don't see how someone violating this supposed prohibition could possibly entitle Matt to lie/cheat/extort/defame/... Edit: I know it's off topic to talk about flagging, but can we consider not flagging the comment this is in reply to? I think it's generated valuable discussion for people learning about this case... even though I strongly disagree with the author.
duskwuff 1y ago
I'd add that some of the WPEngine claims which have been dismissed were reaching quite a bit, e.g. that blocking WPEngine's access to wordpress.org constituted "computer hacking" under the CFAA.
- gpm 1y ago
  I agree, but note that the "computer hacking" (1030(a)(5)) CFAA claim survived, outright. Only the extortion (1030(a)(7)) CFAA claim was dismissed, and it was dismissed with leave to amend.
  - duskwuff 1y ago
    Right. The surviving CFAA claim involves Automattic's takeover of WPEngine's plugin listing. I think this is a stronger claim, since it actually involves unauthorized access (rather than blocking access), and the judge seems to agree.
- photomatt 1y ago
  This could set a very dangerous precedent if it goes through.
  - gpm 1y ago
    As one of the people being highly critical of Matt in this thread, I actually mildly agree with this. The CFAA interpreted broadly is a terrifyingly overbroad law, and while I don't approve of the conduct of seizing the plugin (and could see, for instance, a unfair business practices claim based on it) I think I'd prefer it if the courts interpreted the CFAA narrowly enough to not include an app store updating an app with something other than what the developer put in it.
    - photomatt 1y ago
      Thank you!
system2 1y ago
>In case Matt removes the link It is sad how his reputation is.
DannyBee 1y ago
Lawyer here-100% agree. Calling this a win is super super strange. The only claims that were dismissed were long shots anyway and will just be amended except for extortion. The court didn’t even find that there wasn’t extortion, just that you can’t privately sue over the kind of extortion claimed here. Which means California could actually still sue over it, just not WPEngine. Amusingly, the court also refused to take judicial notice of several documents Automattic submitted because WPEngine said they were not authentic copies of the documents. Overall this is emphatically not a win. They knocked out roughly no interesting claims, knocked out zero claims permanently (the one claim that can’t be amended could still be sued over by California, and they actually might because it’s California), and will have just made themselves work arguing the same claims again once amended. They will still end up in trial in 2027 or 2028. The only usefulness of this would have been as a delaying tactic but I don’t see how that benefits Automattic given the PR disaster they made of this
- jalapenos 1y ago
  Why do these cases take so long? Is it due to the "American rule", that encourages lawyers slowing everything down to rack up huge billings?
  - DannyBee 1y ago
    Good question, but actually not. The judges do absolutely everything they can to keep these things moving or settle. They force people to mediation, they force people to reduce the claims to get rid of shitty claims, etc. Everything they can to get the vast majority of cases that shouldn't need a judge to resolve (which is most of them), out of court. This does slow things down. To give you a sense of how good we are at that (surprisingly), only 1% of federal civil cases (IE this kind) actually reach trial. Only 0.7% reach a jury. It's not evenly distributed across claim types, but if we could push people to that state faster, you'd get some speedup. Not as much as you think. In federal district court, you will get pushed to mediation very very quickly in most cases. They also have special programs to handle complex litigation, to handle multi-district litigation, etc. From a process standpoint, it's more efficient than i think people give it credit for. Trials themselves are usually quick (a few weeks). But even that volume is immense. In 2024, there were 347,991 new civil cases filed in federal district courts. Up 22% (ie crazytown) from the year before. In 2025, so far, it's back down again, but we'll see. A few years ago it was >500,000 new federal civil cases in a year. There are 94 federal district courts in the US, and 677 federal district judges. The average number of pending cases over the past 12 months, per judgeship, currently stands at 757. Maybe they work slow? Nope - they have, on average, terminated 866 cases each in the past year. So uh, terminated more than 16 cases a week. Each. See here: https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/caseload-statistics-data-tables https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/caseload-statist... The number of district court judges is set by congress. It has been set at 677 for a long time. For the volume of cases that there are these days, it's not enough if you want them to go to trial in less than a few years. If we ignore the deliberate abuse of things like binding arbitration, etc, it really does exist (as mediation does) to try to get people to stop wasting court time on things that don't need court. Because while sure, you could always say "get more judges", it's very hard to say 500,000 new federal civil cases a year is not crazy. This is just federal district courts, too. State courts get 13-20 million new civil cases a year. While plenty of lawyers play games, it's honestly mostly the clients. Lawyers just get all the blame.
0zeroto1one 1y ago
From a strategic standpoint, this is exactly what you’d want: the judge cut through the noise, dismissed the flimsiest claims (many with leave to amend), and signaled that only well-substantiated allegations have a path forward. That’s a strong opening for Matt and Automattic. This isn't uncommon in proceedings like this.

jalapenos 1y ago

So basically "please sue him right"?

3np 1y ago

Considering how obviously in the wrong he is, it might not be too off calling that a win for him.

nofriend 1y ago

Matt cites three claims that are dismissed (antitrust, monopolization, and extortion), which based on my skim are really two claims. The first, as you say, is dismissed with leave to amend. The second is dismissed without leave to amend. The first is given the opportunity to be amended, but the dismissal demonstrates serious flaws in the legal argument that they will have difficulty recovering from. I think it's fair for him to celebrate this as a win.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

gpm 1y ago

Just the claims where dismissal was outright denied are also potentially (up to judge and jury at later stages) enough for some pretty devastating damages... I second that this was a loss for Matt. It wasn't even "a draw" where the plaintiffs have to try again with an amended complaint (not that they will necessarily not bother to amend). > I have no connection to either side here, nor am I a lawyer, but I do know how to read a legal opinion. Describes me as well.

echelon 1y ago
I really don't get the engineers on HN sometimes. I get that Matt based WordPress on open source software initially, but 99% of the work that became what WordPress (and by extension, WP Engine) is today was done by him and his company. WP Engine contributes nothing back. They're just leaches on an open source license. They're doing what AWS and the other hyperscalers have done. Making bank on other people's hard work because "pure" open source allows for third party commercialization without compensation. (Or even giving back, as is with WP Engine's case. IIRC, they're not a top contributor to the open source code.) Shouldn't we be angry at the appropriators that take everything and give nothing back? AWS is 99.999% closed source. They're taxing the industry and contributing to increased centralization. Much of what made the early web so exciting has been hoovered up by these open source thieves. Google for taking WebKit, snatching the web, and then removing Manifest v2 amongst other crimes. Again - I think the community is attacking the wrong person here. Matt acted immaturely, but he's the one that put in the work. Not WP Engine.
- gpm 1y ago
  No amount of altruism or engineering work entitles you to lie/cheat/extort/defame/... When you publish something under an open source license, you entitle the rest of the world to use it to get rich. That's what the license says on the tin, what the licenses have always been advertised, etc. I have absolutely no problem with AWS or WPEngine using that entitlement, nor do I have any problem with any software engineer (or software engineering organization like AWS) choosing not to publish source code they didn't promise to. Even if I wasn't of this opinion though - I don't see how someone violating this supposed prohibition could possibly entitle Matt to lie/cheat/extort/defame/... Edit: I know it's off topic to talk about flagging, but can we consider not flagging the comment this is in reply to? I think it's generated valuable discussion for people learning about this case... even though I strongly disagree with the author.

duskwuff 1y ago

I'd add that some of the WPEngine claims which have been dismissed were reaching quite a bit, e.g. that blocking WPEngine's access to wordpress.org constituted "computer hacking" under the CFAA.

gpm 1y ago
I agree, but note that the "computer hacking" (1030(a)(5)) CFAA claim survived, outright. Only the extortion (1030(a)(7)) CFAA claim was dismissed, and it was dismissed with leave to amend.
- duskwuff 1y ago
  Right. The surviving CFAA claim involves Automattic's takeover of WPEngine's plugin listing. I think this is a stronger claim, since it actually involves unauthorized access (rather than blocking access), and the judge seems to agree.
photomatt 1y ago
This could set a very dangerous precedent if it goes through.
- gpm 1y ago
  As one of the people being highly critical of Matt in this thread, I actually mildly agree with this. The CFAA interpreted broadly is a terrifyingly overbroad law, and while I don't approve of the conduct of seizing the plugin (and could see, for instance, a unfair business practices claim based on it) I think I'd prefer it if the courts interpreted the CFAA narrowly enough to not include an app store updating an app with something other than what the developer put in it.
  - photomatt 1y ago
    Thank you!

system2 1y ago

>In case Matt removes the link It is sad how his reputation is.

DannyBee 1y ago

Lawyer here-100% agree. Calling this a win is super super strange. The only claims that were dismissed were long shots anyway and will just be amended except for extortion. The court didn’t even find that there wasn’t extortion, just that you can’t privately sue over the kind of extortion claimed here. Which means California could actually still sue over it, just not WPEngine. Amusingly, the court also refused to take judicial notice of several documents Automattic submitted because WPEngine said they were not authentic copies of the documents. Overall this is emphatically not a win. They knocked out roughly no interesting claims, knocked out zero claims permanently (the one claim that can’t be amended could still be sued over by California, and they actually might because it’s California), and will have just made themselves work arguing the same claims again once amended. They will still end up in trial in 2027 or 2028. The only usefulness of this would have been as a delaying tactic but I don’t see how that benefits Automattic given the PR disaster they made of this

jalapenos 1y ago
Why do these cases take so long? Is it due to the "American rule", that encourages lawyers slowing everything down to rack up huge billings?
- DannyBee 1y ago
  Good question, but actually not. The judges do absolutely everything they can to keep these things moving or settle. They force people to mediation, they force people to reduce the claims to get rid of shitty claims, etc. Everything they can to get the vast majority of cases that shouldn't need a judge to resolve (which is most of them), out of court. This does slow things down. To give you a sense of how good we are at that (surprisingly), only 1% of federal civil cases (IE this kind) actually reach trial. Only 0.7% reach a jury. It's not evenly distributed across claim types, but if we could push people to that state faster, you'd get some speedup. Not as much as you think. In federal district court, you will get pushed to mediation very very quickly in most cases. They also have special programs to handle complex litigation, to handle multi-district litigation, etc. From a process standpoint, it's more efficient than i think people give it credit for. Trials themselves are usually quick (a few weeks). But even that volume is immense. In 2024, there were 347,991 new civil cases filed in federal district courts. Up 22% (ie crazytown) from the year before. In 2025, so far, it's back down again, but we'll see. A few years ago it was >500,000 new federal civil cases in a year. There are 94 federal district courts in the US, and 677 federal district judges. The average number of pending cases over the past 12 months, per judgeship, currently stands at 757. Maybe they work slow? Nope - they have, on average, terminated 866 cases each in the past year. So uh, terminated more than 16 cases a week. Each. See here: https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/caseload-statistics-data-tables https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/caseload-statist... The number of district court judges is set by congress. It has been set at 677 for a long time. For the volume of cases that there are these days, it's not enough if you want them to go to trial in less than a few years. If we ignore the deliberate abuse of things like binding arbitration, etc, it really does exist (as mediation does) to try to get people to stop wasting court time on things that don't need court. Because while sure, you could always say "get more judges", it's very hard to say 500,000 new federal civil cases a year is not crazy. This is just federal district courts, too. State courts get 13-20 million new civil cases a year. While plenty of lawyers play games, it's honestly mostly the clients. Lawyers just get all the blame.

0zeroto1one 1y ago

From a strategic standpoint, this is exactly what you’d want: the judge cut through the noise, dismissed the flimsiest claims (many with leave to amend), and signaled that only well-substantiated allegations have a path forward. That’s a strong opening for Matt and Automattic. This isn't uncommon in proceedings like this.