Hacker News Reader

Comment by threeseed | Hacker News Reader

> Mullenweg failed to disclose this exclusive licensing arrangement between his nonprofit (the WordPress Foundation) and his for-profit (Automattic) in the WordPress Foundation’s tax filings with the California government, claiming that there were no “contracts ... between [WordPress Foundation] and any officer, director or trustee ... or with an entity in which any such officer, director or trustee had any financial interest”.

That can't be good for him.

View on HN

That's not true, will address in court. They made up a lot of things in this.

Is there any practical difference between transferring ownership of the trademark to Automattic vs. granting them an exclusive license that they're able to sublicense?

As I understand it, WordPress Foundation's board can revoke the license if Automattic is no longer a good custodian of the brand.

It makes sure even if Automattic is no longer in good hands, the Foundation can protect the WordPress brand from Automattic.

(I work at Automattic but did not specifically checked the details of the trademark agreement)

The lawsuit asserts pretty vehemently that it's "irrevocable."

It quite literally states in the document that the trademark is irrevocable

Which document are you referring to?

Have a look at the trademark assignment document filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office:

https://tsdr.uspto.gov/caseviewer/assignments?caseId=7882673...

Thanks! I read plenty of patents and lawsuits but haven't had to look up a trademark before.

as I understand it the foundation board is matt and two people matt chose.

The only major difference I can think of would be that the license to A8C could be revocable. But that doesn't make any practical difference, especially since A8C / WPOrg have a hand-in-glove relationship.

A8C is still a for-profit company, if it's sold in the future, and the new owners aren't behaving correctly, the trademark can be revoked.

Apparently it was an irrevocable grant.

It certainly sounds so, but I went looking for the source and I'm not sure what to look for besides the allegation itself. In particular, I did not find a date for that particular claim.

There are also several holes in adjacent statements - for example, ignoring the fact that the Foundation was "paid" in the form of being given the trademark in the first place. And the fact that trademarks can change value over time.

Without knowing how it works in California, it might be that filings are available to the public if you go digging for it but not necessarily online.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com