4 ms·

What's the legal basis for granting the injuction? Also what's WP Engine's legal basis for their counter suit? Isn't it Automattic's business? Can't they refuse

by kayson 2y ago

What's the legal basis for granting the injuction? Also what's WP Engine's legal basis for their counter suit? Isn't it Automattic's business? Can't they refuse to do business with someone if they want?

tommica 2y ago
Well put... It feels weird
buttercraft 2y ago
It's described in the preliminary injunction linked in the article. I can't seem to copy-paste, but it's multipart test including whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and also public interest. It's under the heading "legal standard." Every part of the test went in WP Engine's favor.
ivraatiems 2y ago
Refusing to do business with someone is one thing. Using your power over a competitor to shove them out of the marketplace and, in effect, giving them reverse special treatment in order to punish them and only them, that's not the same.
yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42382829 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42382829 links the paperwork including a PDF discussing that
x0x0 2y ago
My memory of listening to a real attorney discuss this [1] WP Engine showed they will be irreparably harmed, which in this case, means harmed in a way that cash can't fix. Thus the judge is preserving the status quo ante while the suit is worked out. (see 31:52 [1]). edit: requires 1. likelihood (not more likely than not to win, but must show a decent chance); 2. w/o relief, will suffer irreparable harm (as discussed above: can't fix w/ money) 3. balance of equities favors you (more fair to freeze); 4. public interest supports injunction 3 - 4 are, per Mike, fuzzy and "result driven". The most critical factors are success and harm. Separately, there is a thing called "Promissory estoppel" where, even though you don't have a contract, you make a promise (Matt: wp.org is free forever to anyone), someone (WP Engine) relies on that promise to their detriment, and the plaintiff's reliance on that promise was reasonable. Discussion of promissory estoppel at 44:17 in [1] [1] A discussion by attorney Mike Dunford, or so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdwiZEhRS3o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdwiZEhRS3o

by kayson 2y ago

tommica 2y ago

Well put... It feels weird

buttercraft 2y ago

It's described in the preliminary injunction linked in the article. I can't seem to copy-paste, but it's multipart test including whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and also public interest. It's under the heading "legal standard." Every part of the test went in WP Engine's favor.

ivraatiems 2y ago

Refusing to do business with someone is one thing. Using your power over a competitor to shove them out of the marketplace and, in effect, giving them reverse special treatment in order to punish them and only them, that's not the same.

yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42382829 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42382829 links the paperwork including a PDF discussing that

x0x0 2y ago

My memory of listening to a real attorney discuss this [1] WP Engine showed they will be irreparably harmed, which in this case, means harmed in a way that cash can't fix. Thus the judge is preserving the status quo ante while the suit is worked out. (see 31:52 [1]). edit: requires 1. likelihood (not more likely than not to win, but must show a decent chance); 2. w/o relief, will suffer irreparable harm (as discussed above: can't fix w/ money) 3. balance of equities favors you (more fair to freeze); 4. public interest supports injunction 3 - 4 are, per Mike, fuzzy and "result driven". The most critical factors are success and harm. Separately, there is a thing called "Promissory estoppel" where, even though you don't have a contract, you make a promise (Matt: wp.org is free forever to anyone), someone (WP Engine) relies on that promise to their detriment, and the plaintiff's reliance on that promise was reasonable. Discussion of promissory estoppel at 44:17 in [1] [1] A discussion by attorney Mike Dunford, or so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdwiZEhRS3o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdwiZEhRS3o