[lolinder]

> One man's extortion is another's negotiation.

No, this isn't a matter of perspective, it's a matter of law, and it's specifically part of the complaint brought against him [0]:

> WPE has been injured in numerous ways as a result of Defendants’ ongoing extortion, including, but not limited to, measures taken to respond to the extortionate threats, loss and continuing loss of customers, and injury to its goodwill and reputation. WPE is entitled to monetary damages as allowed and injunctive relief to prohibit Defendants from continuing their unlawful actions.

The court will decide if it's attempted extortion, and if it is then Matt and Automattic will owe damages.

[0] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.43...

[emn13]

Let's let the judge or jury figure out the legally pertinent facts and standards; that does not always correlate well with either morality or plain language. I wouldn't be surprised to learn some example of clear extortion in plain English isn't once judicially decided; the converse is just as likely. Famously extreme examples of that disconnect include the Californian bees that are actually fish (legally speaking), but less extreme examples happen all the time.

People sound like they are angry because they feel it's extortion - and I don't think it should matter what the judicial technicalities of some law say about some legislative definition of "extortion".

And in any case; ideally the law follows common sense not vice versa, so in the event that the law disagrees with common sense as a person with no stake in this game the legal ruling just doesn't interest me except as to the degree of damage done due to the judgement.

Finally, there's a very good chance all of this will be settled and we either won't hear about the terms in detail; or we'll hear some agreed upon compromise that won't reflect either of the party's actual beliefs, nor common sense, nor a judicial ruling - merely some negotiated settlement.