We seem to live in an age of narrative over strict substance, unfortunately, and I think the author captured the narrative quite well, with a weakness or two on detail that you pointed out, so I appreciate your attempt to elevate the precision of the discussion.

I don't think people using the word extortion understand how it is defined in a legal sense and the gravity of the criminality. The word extortion as people use it could be replaced with 'threat' or 'ultimatum', with some sentiment of unethicality or unfairness added back in. Legally, it may be fine for Matt to make ultimatums: "contribute in one of the ways I demand, or my free WordPress.org API that I provide is no longer accesible to you", but as a community steward, it seems unfair to the many users of WPE who were not given that ultimatum with any notice (initially), or enough notice after the "reprieve" (Oct 1 still isn't enough notice.)

The only argument of Matt's I find compelling is that WPE's plan names look like a potential misuse of the WordPress mark. If I was WPE, that would be the only thing I would be worried about, and consider changing (though to do it right now might look like an admission of guilt.) If I was a judge, I would consider slapping WPE's wrist on that point, and considering WPE at most 1% at fault in this entire debacle based on facts available. I don't find the overall trademark confusion argument compelling (especially in light of WordPress.org vs WordPress.com confusion, and WordPress.org as Foundation vs WordPress.org as Matt the CEO of a competitor to WPE confusion), though if Matt wants me to believe his own mom is clueless, I will let him have that point.

After fault finding regarding acts of harm is done, then I'd be willing to consider which companies, including WPE, are leeching in a way that makes them not healthy members of the community, but only after all this is sorted out.

Putting aside all legal arguments, I agree with the directionality of Josh Collinsworth's main point regarding the health of the ecosystem.
To put in my own words: Matt's behavior with banning a host's customers from security and feature plugin updates from WordPress.org without sufficient warning (or clear enough reason) has damaged trust in a core single point of failure in the WordPress ecosystem -- I see no excuse for this -- and it is important for the ecosystem to restore this trust as soon as possible.

It's an unacceptable situation to begin with, that something that powers 43% of all sites on the Internet can have security updates degraded on the whim of one individual, no matter how much he contributed to the software in the past.

The most direct way to repair trust would seem to be at the very least to put WordPress.org's update server in the ownership and operation of someone else, preferably a functioning board who was bound to serve the community/ecosystem in a way that included minimizing ecosystem disrupting events like this one, and who established transparent guidelines on what sort of behavior can get a company banned from using these servers (and few mention they are also banned from future conferences). That this event came without warning to many users seems outrageous.

Another thing Josh has right: I and virtually all people hate, to a high degree, greedy ownership of corporations that intentionally lets quality rot as pricing is jacked up and money is squeezed out, so it is very remarkable that so many people think the more critical infraction to the community here is what Matt has done. This isn't about the greedy private equity firm or trademarks right now. It's about a bigger and more urgent problem. We have plenty of time to get back to corporate greed after the current emergency is resolved.