Craig Wright loses Bitcoin Copyright at England and Wales High Court Division

[suzanne5223]

On 7th February 2023.
Before The Hon Justice Mellor
Between CSW and Bitcore partnership entitles, Samuel Dobson, Cory Fields, Luke Dash Jr, Blockstream Corporation, Coinbase Inc, and others. Craig Wright has lost a copyright claim against the Bitcoin blockchain in a court in the UK.

Details: This judgment is concerned with a short, discrete but important point about whether copyright subsists in a file format used in the Bitcoin System. Unfortunately, there is a lot of background and context I must set out before I get to the short point in question.

Case Background

The First Claimant, Dr. Wright, claims to be the creator of the Bitcoin System, the person who wrote the original Bitcoin code and the author of the White Paper, a document entitled Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System, which essentially describes the Bitcoin System. He claims he was the person who made the White Paper available to the public on 31 October 2008 under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto.

This action is one of four in the Business & Property Courts involving Dr Wright and there is a common issue in all four actions – what has been called 'the identity issue', namely, whether it was Dr Wright who adopted the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto when announcing his creation of the Bitcoin System or, perhaps slightly inaccurately, whether Dr Wright was or is Satoshi Nakamoto. That issue will be the subject of trial in due course.

The hearing which gave rise to this judgment was concerned with an aspect of Dr Wright's application for permission to serve this claim out of the jurisdiction. Some of the Defendants are in the jurisdiction and have been served already in a conventional way. The majority of the Defendants are outside the jurisdiction. There is clear authority that, in order to grant a litigant permission to serve his claim on someone outside the jurisdiction, the court must be satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried on the merits of the claim see Altimo Holdings and Investment Ltd v Kyrgyz Mobile Tel Ltd [2011] UKPC 7 at [71], VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5 at [164]. This means that the claim must have a real (as opposed to a fanciful) prospect of success. This standard applies to each cause of action asserted in the claim.

Source is the British and Irish Legal Information Institute

[jackg]

There's more they have to apply for when cases are brought against people out of jurisdiction so it's fairly rare that it's done in the UK - it seems quite good they said the bit about it being fanciful or of the claim being real as it means the judge didn't consider CSW to have a legitimate claim (I assume it could also have been thrown out due to the difficultly in serving international summons).

[AverageGlabella]

What are the consequences for filing a fraudulent law suit that wastes the time of the courts? I know CSW has unlimited resources which he can do this multiple times but when is it time to say enough is enough? There should be harsh punishments for law suits that do not have substance behind them. CSW will continue to do this type of bullshit in courts all around the world and he will probably succeed in a few of them.
 

There's more they have to apply for when cases are brought against people out of jurisdiction so it's fairly rare that it's done in the UK - it seems quite good they said the bit about it being fanciful or of the claim being real as it means the judge didn't consider CSW to have a legitimate claim (I assume it could also have been thrown out due to the difficultly in serving international summons).

The sad truth is it got to the court room. It should have never been considered legitimate and thrown out before it did.

[franky1]

in short csw claimed he owned the literary rights to the blockheader 'file'

however the judge knew enough about bitcoin to know the data in the blockheader is not a fixed quote nor a file in of itself(80bytes). its a block of data thats now over 1mb in length

even if changing the claim to not mention blockheader(80bytes) as a file. but instead as a chapter(blockhead) of a book(block). it still fails the test of bitcoin(btc) using a quote of copyright literacy. due to bitcoin(btc)not using fixed data/quote


but lets just prove the point about the blockheader format(literacy paragraph/quote)
[version] changed from 1 to 2 in 2012, to 3,4 in 2015
[prev block id] changes every block
[tx merkle] changes every block
[time] changes every block
[difficulty] changes every 2016 block
[nonce] changes every block

thus bitcoin is not using a fixed quote of literacy fixed into every block

a block in 2009 is different to a block in 2013 is different to a block in 2016 is different to a block in 2023..

Whilst I accept that the law of copyright will continue to face challenges with new digital technologies, I do not see any prospect of the law as currently stated and understood in the caselaw allowing copyright protection of subject-matter which is not expressed or fixed anywhere.
....
...
ii) Second, Counsel submitted that fixation was a pure formality, imposed so that there can be no argument later as to what the copyright work is. On that basis, he submitted, there was sufficient fixation in this case, because there is no doubt as to what the Bitcoin File Format is. This is another non-sequitur, which is also based on a complete misunderstanding of the requirement for a fixation.

The Claimants may consider themselves unlucky to have had their application for leave to serve out come before a Judge with at least some understanding of the technology involved here. However, since I identified the issue and have given the Claimants numerous opportunities to address it, I am unable to take what might be termed the 'easy' option and allow this claim to literary copyright to proceed. If, as I have found, there is no serious issue to be tried, I see no reason why any of the Defendants should be burdened with this particular claim. Counsel happened to mention that some of the Defendants might not defend the claim, giving rise to the prospect of the Claimants obtaining judgment in default against them. Again, in view of my conclusion, I see no reason why the Claimants should obtain a judgment in default on the claim for infringement of copyright in the Bitcoin File Format.

Accordingly, I give permission to the Claimants to serve a Re-Amended Claim Form and Amended Particulars of Claim out of the jurisdiction on the relevant Defendants on condition that the claims of and concerning infringement of copyright in the Bitcoin File Format are deleted.

At the conclusion of the hearing, I asked Counsel how he suggested the claim should proceed if I were to rule against the Claimants on this point. He wished to take instructions on the point. We agreed he would send a note indicating the Claimants' position, which he did. In effect, the Claimants wish to serve the proceedings out of the jurisdiction in respect of the remaining causes of action to enable the claim to proceed. In addition, the Claimants seek permission to appeal on the basis that the issue raises 'a point of law concerning the requirement for fixation in this type of case on which an appeal court may take a different view and on which there appears to have been no ruling in earlier decided cases'.

Consistent with my conclusion, I refuse permission to appeal. If the Court of Appeal disagrees, then the Claimants will obtain permission to appeal from that Court.

[NotATether]

So this means Bitcoin.org has no reason to block the Bitcoin Whitepaper in the UK after this, right?

This actually happened faster than I expected. I was thinking the courtroom battle would take months as CSW would try to keep his crazy case there as long as possible given that he knew it was (somewhat) unlikely for him to retain the copyright after the appeals level.

[Mofough82]

How many Ls is this guy going to have to take before he finally goes away?

[NotATether]

How many Ls is this guy going to have to take before he finally goes away?

Too many. CSW cannot afford to lose face in front of the courts of all places, since he's already been thoroughly humiliated in public circles. The legal courts are the only places that stand an actual chance of believing his claims.

Besides, if he did leave, tax authorities would quickly throw him in an Australian jail.

[DaveF]

There will always be more people to scam.
Even now, people are posting that this is a win for him because well I tried to understand it, but the word salad made my brain hurt.

It's just a numbers game the more he talks, the more people hear it, the more people hear it the more likely he is going to find more people to get money from.

<shrug> You can't fix stupid </shrug>

But at least the more places he looses the easier it is for the next people he goes after to show the losses as precedent.

-Dave

[suzanne5223]

How many Ls is this guy going to have to take before he finally goes away?

Too many. CSW cannot afford to lose face in front of the courts of all places, since he's already been thoroughly humiliated in public circles. The legal courts are the only places that stand an actual chance of believing his claims.

Besides, if he did leave, tax authorities would quickly throw him in an Australian jail.

I personally never expect CSW to give up now because if he wanted to give up he would have done that long ago when there was so much pressure on him by Bitcoiners and as the jury said "I refuse permission to appeal. If the Court of Appeal disagrees, then the Claimants will obtain permission to appeal from that Court."
I think he may want to appeal and the only thing that can make him keep quiet is the Australian jail as you said.

[BitcoinMoses]

On 7th February 2023.
Before The Hon Justice Mellor
Between CSW and Bitcore partnership entitles, Samuel Dobson, Cory Fields, Luke Dash Jr, Blockstream Corporation, Coinbase Inc, and others. Craig Wright has lost a copyright claim against the Bitcoin blockchain in a court in the UK.

Details: This judgment is concerned with a short, discrete but important point about whether copyright subsists in a file format used in the Bitcoin System. Unfortunately, there is a lot of background and context I must set out before I get to the short point in question.

Case Background

The First Claimant, Dr. Wright, claims to be the creator of the Bitcoin System, the person who wrote the original Bitcoin code and the author of the White Paper, a document entitled Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System, which essentially describes the Bitcoin System. He claims he was the person who made the White Paper available to the public on 31 October 2008 under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto.

This action is one of four in the Business & Property Courts involving Dr Wright and there is a common issue in all four actions – what has been called 'the identity issue', namely, whether it was Dr Wright who adopted the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto when announcing his creation of the Bitcoin System or, perhaps slightly inaccurately, whether Dr Wright was or is Satoshi Nakamoto. That issue will be the subject of trial in due course.

The hearing which gave rise to this judgment was concerned with an aspect of Dr Wright's application for permission to serve this claim out of the jurisdiction. Some of the Defendants are in the jurisdiction and have been served already in a conventional way. The majority of the Defendants are outside the jurisdiction. There is clear authority that, in order to grant a litigant permission to serve his claim on someone outside the jurisdiction, the court must be satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried on the merits of the claim see Altimo Holdings and Investment Ltd v Kyrgyz Mobile Tel Ltd [2011] UKPC 7 at [71], VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5 at [164]. This means that the claim must have a real (as opposed to a fanciful) prospect of success. This standard applies to each cause of action asserted in the claim.

Source is the British and Irish Legal Information Institute

   Craig Wright loses his Fake Bitcoin Copyright Claim at England and Wales High Court Division

I want to see how far a Cangaroo can jump ?  There is always a limit, you can't go beyond that limit.  For Craig it is just nothing  shameful at all because he has hundreds invention patents.  So he does not care.  I think he has done enough, and that enough is enough.

[mk4]

How many Ls is this guy going to have to take before he finally goes away?

Until him and probably his company goes bankrupt. They invested way too much time and money into this fraudulence that they've pretty much wasted their time and money if they're going to pull out and quit now. Perfect definition of sunk-cost fallacy.

[suzanne5223]

On 7th February 2023.
Before The Hon Justice Mellor
Between CSW and Bitcore partnership entitles, Samuel Dobson, Cory Fields, Luke Dash Jr, Blockstream Corporation, Coinbase Inc, and others. Craig Wright has lost a copyright claim against the Bitcoin blockchain in a court in the UK.
[snip]

   Craig Wright loses his Fake Bitcoin Copyright Claim at England and Wales High Court Division

I want to see how far a Cangaroo can jump ?  There is always a limit, you can't go beyond that limit.  For Craig it is just nothing  shameful at all because he has hundreds invention patents.  So he does not care.  I think he has done enough, and that enough is enough.

There's always a limit to everything but this is not to be the case for CSW because he appears to have already had everything in the plan or he has a master strategy and team that's doing the unlawful work with him if not he would have quit long ago.
Let's wait and see if he's going to eventually stop now after losing the court case but I still believe that only jail would make him stop. 

[pawel7777]

How many Ls is this guy going to have to take before he finally goes away?

He just can't get enough.

Apparently, he's also suing 16 bitcoin developers to force them to modify the protocol and grant him access to two wallets containing 111,000 btc:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5439328.0
https://www.coindesk.com/business/2023/02/03/craig-wrights-uk-case-against-16-bitcoin-developers-to-go-to-full-trial-report/

Needless to say, that will never happen.

Everyone has some hobby. Abusing the legal system is his.

[Hispo]

How many Ls is this guy going to have to take before he finally goes away?

Until him and probably his company goes bankrupt. They invested way too much time and money into this fraudulence that they've pretty much wasted their time and money if they're going to pull out and quit now. Perfect definition of sunk-cost fallacy.

While your theory sounds reasonable, I am afraid we should not underestimate the way these kind of grifters continue their antics even after declaring themselves to be bankrupted.  We are talking about irrational individuals, after all.

Assuming he ran out of money, he could still try to fool ill-informed people in order to raise more funds so can continue to fuel his life long crusade to nowhere. I am sure you have already read or heard about people who had done so.

[mk4]

While your theory sounds reasonable, I am afraid we should not underestimate the way these kind of grifters continue their antics even after declaring themselves to be bankrupted.  We are talking about irrational individuals, after all.

Assuming he ran out of money, he could still try to fool ill-informed people in order to raise more funds so can continue to fuel his life long crusade to nowhere. I am sure you have already read or heard about people who had done so.

That's definitely possible, but as time goes that he gets no good results at all, his reputation(assuming there's much left) will surely go down hence the number of potential supporters go down as well.

[franky1]

That's definitely possible, but as time goes that he gets no good results at all, his reputation(assuming there's much left) will surely go down hence the number of potential supporters go down as well.

scammers dont care about their reputation. its all about money
even their investors who work with the scammer dont care about reputation. its all about the money

even if all the lies are revealed. it doesnt matter to them because now they have a action packed biography fit for a book, movie deal where they still remain famous not due to reputation but due to dis-repute
fame and riches does not require good reputation. it just requires knowing how to sell yourself
and con artists know how to sell themselves no matter the story

its not about reputation. its about popularity

more people know about hitler, read books about him,. seen movies and such.
but how many know the name or the history or read or watched movies about... inventing (random choice)the solar panel..
even where its a known fact that solar panels have benefitted the world alot more then hitler.

[worle1bm]

How many Ls is this guy going to have to take before he finally goes away?

Not much left if keep on going the same way as with each loss he is losing the battle to prove what he is not.When he will go bankrupt he might realise what a blunder he has done by wasting all such years and money into these bullshit fraud cases from him.The L's are not gonna help him more.

[Kakmakr]

How many Ls is this guy going to have to take before he finally goes away?

Well, I guess until his money runs out... but seeing how much money he presumably has, it is going to last a long time. He will appeal against the judgements on technicalities and it's going to draw on and on... until the judicial system make the mistake he is waiting for. 

Craig Wright cannot win against the experts in the field, because the facts are out there that he has no proof (Private keys to Satoshi's tokens) to validate his claims, but the judicial system have some flaws... and he is trying to exploit that. 

[coiningz]

Always happy to see good court decisions

[mk4]

scammers dont care about their reputation. its all about money
even their investors who work with the scammer dont care about reputation. its all about the money

even if all the lies are revealed. it doesnt matter to them because now they have a action packed biography fit for a book, movie deal where they still remain famous not due to reputation but due to dis-repute
fame and riches does not require good reputation. it just requires knowing how to sell yourself
and con artists know how to sell themselves no matter the story

its not about reputation. its about popularity

more people know about hitler, read books about him,. seen movies and such.
but how many know the name or the history or read or watched movies about... inventing (random choice)the solar panel..
even where its a known fact that solar panels have benefitted the world alot more then hitler.

You're right to some extent, but reputation is still relevant. Because if I were to guess, not literally 100% of people on CSW's side are malicious. At least some of them are just tricked and lied to.