Pages:
Author

Topic: Craig Wright loses Bitcoin Copyright at England and Wales High Court Division - page 2. (Read 345 times)

member
Activity: 82
Merit: 11
How many Ls is this guy going to have to take before he finally goes away?
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 6660
bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org
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.
legendary
Activity: 4410
Merit: 4766
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..


Quote
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.
legendary
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1080
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.
copper member
Activity: 2856
Merit: 3071
https://bit.ly/387FXHi lightning theory
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).
hero member
Activity: 2660
Merit: 651
Want top-notch marketing for your project, Hire me
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
Pages:
Jump to: