5 ms·

People in this thread seem to be focused on the defamation angle, but is the more important allegation not the alleged demand for large amounts of money to not

People in this thread seem to be focused on the defamation angle, but is the more important allegation not the alleged demand for large amounts of money to not destroy WP Engine's business? Matt sounds like a wannabe mob boss in the screencapped texts, sending photos of the crowd before his keynote and talking about how he could still "very easily" make it just a Q&A session if WP Engine agrees to pay up.

Kye 2y ago
Agreed. I'm confused by a lot of the discourse in this thread. The extortion seems like the important thing. I would think (paraphrasing) "I'm going to destroy your business if you don't pay me" is extortion regardless of the merits of the claims used in carrying out the threat.
- tptacek 2y ago
  Extortion does not look like an easy case to make. Pull up some of the state statutes: they all seem to have intent and malice requirements, and/or, like California, require the threat to be of an unlawful injury. Threatening to ruthlessly exploit capabilities you lawfully have, like the bully pulpit of leading the WordPress project or the strictness with which you license your trademark, is unlikely to meet that standard. (But see below for the 'DannyBee comment on how UCL unfair competition might work even if you can't make a case under the extortion statute itself).
- BobaFloutist 2y ago
  I mean if a business if built on top of your business, is it actually illegal to say "Pay me if you want continued access?" Is it the wording that makes it illegal?
  - Kye 2y ago
    Who built what business on whose business? It's not clear what you're referring to.
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    ... to the open source project WordPress? 1) it'd be hard to forbid any one entity from using it, based on the licensing, and 2) the announcements and banners pushed to users referenced WP.com, Matt's for-profit competitor which WPengine doesn't use, and brings about elements of tortious interference.
chuckadams 2y ago
Exactly, the extortion is the most serious allegation, but WPE isn't providing a lot of background in terms of what and how much Mullenweg was demanding, only texts that came well after the demand was made. My guess is if there's a really damning email, WPE's lawyers served them a legal hold privately rather than make it public. Alexa, order ten cases of popcorn...
- slouch 2y ago
  Matt admitted on reddit that he asked for 8% of annual revenue or ~40 million. https://www.reddit.com/r/Wordpress/comments/1fnz0h6/comment/lon9wsg/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Wordpress/comments/1fnz0h6/comment/... He posted this after receiving the C&D.
  - mthoms 2y ago
    Notably, Matt demanded that would need to be paid to Automattic instead of the WordPress Foundation. (that's according to WPEngine). Automattic is Matt's private, for-profit company and a direct competitor to WPE.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      There are things in that WPE C&D that make me question how candid they're being; for instance, the trademark dispute seems an awful lot more complicated than the letters "W" and "P".
      - chuckadams 2y ago
        Perhaps, but as I mentioned elsewhere, MM is putting on a master class on how not to resolve such disputes.
    - slouch 2y ago
      That's because Matt's Foundation gave Matt's Automattic the exclusive commercial trademark license. https://x.com/photomatt/status/1838671002529665394 https://x.com/photomatt/status/1838671002529665394

Kye 2y ago

Agreed. I'm confused by a lot of the discourse in this thread. The extortion seems like the important thing. I would think (paraphrasing) "I'm going to destroy your business if you don't pay me" is extortion regardless of the merits of the claims used in carrying out the threat.

tptacek 2y ago
Extortion does not look like an easy case to make. Pull up some of the state statutes: they all seem to have intent and malice requirements, and/or, like California, require the threat to be of an unlawful injury. Threatening to ruthlessly exploit capabilities you lawfully have, like the bully pulpit of leading the WordPress project or the strictness with which you license your trademark, is unlikely to meet that standard. (But see below for the 'DannyBee comment on how UCL unfair competition might work even if you can't make a case under the extortion statute itself).
BobaFloutist 2y ago
I mean if a business if built on top of your business, is it actually illegal to say "Pay me if you want continued access?" Is it the wording that makes it illegal?
- Kye 2y ago
  Who built what business on whose business? It's not clear what you're referring to.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  ... to the open source project WordPress? 1) it'd be hard to forbid any one entity from using it, based on the licensing, and 2) the announcements and banners pushed to users referenced WP.com, Matt's for-profit competitor which WPengine doesn't use, and brings about elements of tortious interference.

chuckadams 2y ago

Exactly, the extortion is the most serious allegation, but WPE isn't providing a lot of background in terms of what and how much Mullenweg was demanding, only texts that came well after the demand was made. My guess is if there's a really damning email, WPE's lawyers served them a legal hold privately rather than make it public. Alexa, order ten cases of popcorn...

slouch 2y ago
Matt admitted on reddit that he asked for 8% of annual revenue or ~40 million. https://www.reddit.com/r/Wordpress/comments/1fnz0h6/comment/lon9wsg/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Wordpress/comments/1fnz0h6/comment/... He posted this after receiving the C&D.
- mthoms 2y ago
  Notably, Matt demanded that would need to be paid to Automattic instead of the WordPress Foundation. (that's according to WPEngine). Automattic is Matt's private, for-profit company and a direct competitor to WPE.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    There are things in that WPE C&D that make me question how candid they're being; for instance, the trademark dispute seems an awful lot more complicated than the letters "W" and "P".
    - chuckadams 2y ago
      Perhaps, but as I mentioned elsewhere, MM is putting on a master class on how not to resolve such disputes.
  - slouch 2y ago
    That's because Matt's Foundation gave Matt's Automattic the exclusive commercial trademark license. https://x.com/photomatt/status/1838671002529665394 https://x.com/photomatt/status/1838671002529665394