WP Engine's motion for preliminary injunction [pdf] | Hacker News Reader

WP Engine's motion for preliminary injunction [pdf]

storage.courtlistener.com

24 pointslolinder7 comments

At least WPE's moves make sense. Who knows what Mullenweg will do next.

They got banned from WordPress.org and they're demanding a court issue an order for their emergency reinstatement under the computer fraud and abuse act. I hope they get laughed out of court because that is so completely insane. Next thing you know every SEO spammer who gets delisted from search engines will be suing Google under CFAA.

Their argument is that Matt admitted multiple times in public that he banned them from the systems in order to coerce them into paying for a completely unrelated trademark license which they don't actually need. They argue that that qualifies as extortion, which is explicitly called out in CFAA.

It's up to the court to decide if their argument is legal, but it's bad faith to pretend that their claim is comparable to an SEO spammer getting delisted.

You understand the Hacker News guidelines ask people to not assume bad faith? We have every right to be concerned about this case, since it'd be bad if a court establishes a precedent that denying people access to online services is computer fraud and abuse. In any case, it's unlikely to happen, since WPE's complaint reads like a teenage manifesto. They might succeed in pulling the wool over the eyes of rubberneckers, but it's difficult to imagine a judge being taken in by that.

I tried my best to assume good faith, but based on your replies I don't believe you've actually read the complaint in full.

The extortion is the alleged violation of the CFAA, not just the damage to their computer systems. The allegation is that Automattic threatened to damage their computer systems if they failed to pay Automattic money, which they assert is a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1030(a)(7), which reads:

> (7) with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any—

> (A) threat to cause damage to a protected computer;

> (B) threat to obtain information from a protected computer without authorization or in excess of authorization or to impair the confidentiality of information obtained from a protected computer without authorization or by exceeding authorized access; or

> (C) demand or request for money or other thing of value in relation to damage to a protected computer, where such damage was caused to facilitate the extortion;

> shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030

Matt sent WPE a bill for using his webserver and trademark. When WPE didn't pay, he turned off their access. Then WPE sued him. If anyone is acting abusive, it's WPE. I mean, I don't sue AT&T if I forget to pay my phone bill. Except Matt isn't an AT&T. He's running an open source project. I run open source projects too. I don't want to be sued and accused of being a cybercriminal by some profiteer whose IP I blocked for abusing my webserver. I don't want to be ordered by a court to help someone for free who's been harming me. That's what abusers do. They abuse you and then abuse you more if you don't let them keep abusing you. It always makes me glad to see victims of abuse stand up to bullies. Of course it's always the abuser's MO to act like they're the one being abused when the victim stands up for themself. WPE's case rests entirely on optics relating to Matt's guileless aspie behavior, which is perfectly understandable if we consider how terribly he's being treated.

Well worth the read.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com