[refulgentis]

Curious what you'd make of these holdings, I'm not up on all the nonsense that's happened:

- It was reasonable, in that it is fair and sensible, in that it was not trying to attain an unjust advantage. It might not be generous. But that's life in the big leagues.

- Going about it boorishly (ex. the login checkbox), then reacting poorly in an attempt to own the haters, definitely crossed a line (I'm sure stealing their plugin did as well, assuming they overrode someone else's code with their own in people's installs)

[slenk]

How was it not attaining an unjust advantage when WP.org banned WPEngine?

[refulgentis]

Nothing entitles a for-profit entity such as WP Engine, to use the non-profit wordpress.org theme/plugin repository resources and infrastructure for free

[ceejayoz]

A court order currently entitles them to exactly that.

https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/10/court-orders-mullenweg-and...

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25451524-wp-engine-v...

"the Court finds that WPEngine is likely to succeed on the merits of its intentional interference with contractual relations claim"

"Within 72 hours, Defendants are ORDERED to... restore WPEngine’s and Related Entities’ access to wordpress.org as it existed as ofSeptember 20, 2024"

It seems you can't use your theoretically independent non-profit to extort your for-profit arm's competitor.

[refulgentis]

I wanna be really ultra-clear here, because I might say this and be perceived as defending wordpress or thinking it's a good thing: this is bad!!!

I, unfortunately for myself, have some legal background and that's a...choppy...reading of it.

Let me explain:

The court found WPEngine is likely to succeed on its claim that WordPress.org/Automattic/Mullenweg intentionally interfered with WPEngine's existing customer contracts through specific harmful actions taken after September 20, 2024, including:

- Suddenly blocking access that had been freely available.

- Taking over and modifying the ACF plugin without authorization.

- Forcing WPEngine's customers to declare they weren't affiliated with WPEngine.

- Making it difficult for WPEngine to service its existing customers.

- Actively trying to get WPEngine's customers to break their contracts.

The court viewed these as potentially illegal interference tactics, especially since they appeared to be retaliatory after WPEngine refused to pay the demanded 8% revenue share.

However, this is different from a finding about WordPress.org's general right to implement a fair charging system in the future. The issue isn't that WordPress.org wanted to charge money - it's that they allegedly used improper interference tactics to try to force payment and harm WPEngine's business relationships.

Noting again for the record, I deplore the behavior here. However, you are allowed to charge people: just not start doing only with one singular entity, as a gish gallop of nonsense that affects the one singular entity's customers.

(the shortest smoking gun on this is footnote 11, but it might be too legal-ese to parse the plain meaning, which is "hey this makes sense if you're complaining about a one-off surprise of fucking with only your customers, but I can't justify it in the long term, and you know that, you're not trying to either")

Footnote 11: "In its briefs, WPEngine refers to its “interference claims” but only addresses the elements of theclaim for intentional interference with contractual relations. See Mot. at 26-28. For this reason,the Court does not separately analyze whether WPEngine is likely to succeed on its claim forintentional interference with prospective economic relations.")

[ceejayoz]

> However, this is different from a finding about WordPress.org's general right to implement a fair charging system in the future.

Sure. I didn't say that. My claim is entirely accurate - WPEngine is currently entitled to free access, under a court order.

[refulgentis]

Wait, you put me through all that so you could do "I wasn't replying on the substance, I said currently!"

Okay lol