> Defendants’ arguments in opposition do not persuade otherwise. They assert that “[t]he public is not, and will not, be subject to any harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction” noting that WPEngine implemented a workaround for Mullenweg’s interference with its access to WordPress. Opp. at 33. Not so. In his reply declaration, Prabhakar explains that the temporary solution “is impractical for many reasons.” Prabhakar Reply Decl. ¶ 4. Without access to wordpress.org, those who use WPEngine’s plugins “would not know that their plugins require
update[.]” Id. Many do not know how to update plugins manually. Id. For those that do, if they manage several websites, and those websites run multiple plugins, the process of performing manual updates would be too onerous and time consuming to be workable. Id. Moreover, even if WPEngine’s workaround did not present the difficulties Prabhakar describes, the costs associated with its implementation, as necessitated by Mullenweg’s conduct, supports the issuance of injunctive relief.
Ouch. The court is basically saying that they need to implement the preliminary injunction for the wider public good. Rather puts the lie to several assertions by Mullenweg.
In fact, it's not at all looking good for Mullenweg or Automattic.