COPA v Wright, the identity issue – Day 10. 🧵
We continue cross-examination of Wright's fact witnesses today. Here they are:
* Danielle DeMorgan: Wright's sister.
* Mark Archbold: Compliance manager for a gaming company, met Wright in the late nineties.
* Cerian Jones: A patent attorney who has worked with Wright since 2015 and helped with nChain's early patents.
Jones will be in the courtroom while the other two are on videolink from Australia.
This is my last day in court, so I hope it will be good. We'll be in session in 2.5 hours from now, at 10:30.
We continue cross-examination of Wright's fact witnesses today. Here they are:
* Danielle DeMorgan: Wright's sister.
* Mark Archbold: Compliance manager for a gaming company, met Wright in the late nineties.
* Cerian Jones: A patent attorney who has worked with Wright since 2015 and helped with nChain's early patents.
Jones will be in the courtroom while the other two are on videolink from Australia.
This is my last day in court, so I hope it will be good. We'll be in session in 2.5 hours from now, at 10:30.
As always, I gratefully accept tips to norbert@walletofsatoshi.com, or this QR code. 🙏
Lord Grabiner has arrived, unusually early. Otherwise a quiet morning here.
Seated. Wright is here, dark suit and white shirt. Shoes still to be determined. Can't see his wife.
We're in session.
C (Hough): We have a revised timetable. [lists today's witnesses]. On Monday, Bridges and Lynam. In the afternoon, Matthews. Tuesday afternoon we move to COPA's witnesses. Some early starts. Wright will be recalled on 23rd. Madden on 26th. Stroustrup [missed date] etc.
Mellor: Should we start 9:30 on Monday?
C: I don't think it's necessary.
Mellor: That's great. [relieved laughter]
C (Hough): We have a revised timetable. [lists today's witnesses]. On Monday, Bridges and Lynam. In the afternoon, Matthews. Tuesday afternoon we move to COPA's witnesses. Some early starts. Wright will be recalled on 23rd. Madden on 26th. Stroustrup [missed date] etc.
Mellor: Should we start 9:30 on Monday?
C: I don't think it's necessary.
Mellor: That's great. [relieved laughter]
Gr: I'm to call on Danielle DeMorgan. [she appears on videolink]
Usher takes her through the oath.
Gr: On your screen, see your witness statement. Is that your signature?
DeMorgan (D): Yes.
Gr: Is the content true?
D: Yes.
Usher takes her through the oath.
Gr: On your screen, see your witness statement. Is that your signature?
DeMorgan (D): Yes.
Gr: Is the content true?
D: Yes.
C: Good morning. You're Wright's younger sister. You have a good relationship. You refer to a blog post. [shows] Is this it?
D: That is a blog post, yes.
C: You refer to this content in your witness statement?
D: Yes.
C: You say [quotes] "he will one day create something that will change the world". "He knew from being a child that he would create something that would change the world." [x] was your grandfather?
D: Yes, he has passed away.
D: That is a blog post, yes.
C: You refer to this content in your witness statement?
D: Yes.
C: You say [quotes] "he will one day create something that will change the world". "He knew from being a child that he would create something that would change the world." [x] was your grandfather?
D: Yes, he has passed away.
C: You say your brother has a strong interest in Japanese martial arts?
D: In his younger years, yes.
C: He had weapons that could do damage.
D: Yes.
D: He would dress up in full swords and do the movement.
C: You describe an incident in the park, an unknown person dressed in a ninja outfit with a sword. You say "to say he was eccentric was the least." You recount a story, the unknown person was practicing martial arts with a sword. Swinging it around.
D: [makes hand movements] Yes, it was quite a large space.
C: You saw it when you were about 15 in the witness statement, or 16 in the blog.
D: Yes, about that age.
C: Craig would have been about 18-19. The sword was one from his collection, real of realistic. You say you turned around and ran back home screaming and told people about the crazy guy in the park.
D: Yes, all you could see was his eyes.
C: Some time after you were home, the door opened and the ninja walked in. It proved to be Craig. You give that as an example about Craig being eccentric.
D: In his younger years, yes.
C: He had weapons that could do damage.
D: Yes.
D: He would dress up in full swords and do the movement.
C: You describe an incident in the park, an unknown person dressed in a ninja outfit with a sword. You say "to say he was eccentric was the least." You recount a story, the unknown person was practicing martial arts with a sword. Swinging it around.
D: [makes hand movements] Yes, it was quite a large space.
C: You saw it when you were about 15 in the witness statement, or 16 in the blog.
D: Yes, about that age.
C: Craig would have been about 18-19. The sword was one from his collection, real of realistic. You say you turned around and ran back home screaming and told people about the crazy guy in the park.
D: Yes, all you could see was his eyes.
C: Some time after you were home, the door opened and the ninja walked in. It proved to be Craig. You give that as an example about Craig being eccentric.
C: You say "to this day I still see the event clearly, and when I heard the term Satoshi, I knew it was Craig." "Craig looked perplexed at the commotion." You're drawing a connection between the ninja story and you associating Craig with Satoshi.
D: Yes.
C: You describe visiting Wright for a barbecue. Was that property [place name]?
D: Yes, I believe so.
C: You say it was shortly after your youngest child was born, which was in 2007. So this was around 2008?
D: Yes, she was a little bit older. End of 2007 or early 2008.
C: You say you recall a room full of computers that looked like a mad professor's room.
D: It was full of computers and chords.
C: It appeared to be a converted living room or bedroom.
D: Yes.
C: Craig said he was working on something important. Your reaction was "oh, whatever". You didn't take him very seriously at the time?
D: No, Craig had some technical projects and he explained them to me but it was over my head. I was just there for a catch-up.
D: Yes.
C: You describe visiting Wright for a barbecue. Was that property [place name]?
D: Yes, I believe so.
C: You say it was shortly after your youngest child was born, which was in 2007. So this was around 2008?
D: Yes, she was a little bit older. End of 2007 or early 2008.
C: You say you recall a room full of computers that looked like a mad professor's room.
D: It was full of computers and chords.
C: It appeared to be a converted living room or bedroom.
D: Yes.
C: Craig said he was working on something important. Your reaction was "oh, whatever". You didn't take him very seriously at the time?
D: No, Craig had some technical projects and he explained them to me but it was over my head. I was just there for a catch-up.
C: You say you later heard Wright had been involved in some project from 2009-10. You later heard the name Satoshi Nakamoto and that Craig was involved.
D: Yes, in 2008 I knew he was working with Lasseters, was one of my old customers. He was working on digital currency.
C: You don't say in your witness statement about a digital currency.
D: No, they told me they already had a witness statement from Lasseters.
C: And you [haven't written anything about it]
D: No, I've only written a few blog articles. There were so much evidence, [missed]
C: You say when you first heard he was working on Bitcoin, 2012-13, your first reaction is that it would totally be him. The connection you draw between Crag and Satoshi is the interest in Japanese names.
D: That's part of it, yes.
C: Many have been proposed as Satoshi candidates. Are any of those interested in Japanese culture?
D: I have no clue, haven't looked into them.
C: Thank you, those were all the questions I had.
Mellor: Thank you, you are now released from your oath.
D: Yes, in 2008 I knew he was working with Lasseters, was one of my old customers. He was working on digital currency.
C: You don't say in your witness statement about a digital currency.
D: No, they told me they already had a witness statement from Lasseters.
C: And you [haven't written anything about it]
D: No, I've only written a few blog articles. There were so much evidence, [missed]
C: You say when you first heard he was working on Bitcoin, 2012-13, your first reaction is that it would totally be him. The connection you draw between Crag and Satoshi is the interest in Japanese names.
D: That's part of it, yes.
C: Many have been proposed as Satoshi candidates. Are any of those interested in Japanese culture?
D: I have no clue, haven't looked into them.
C: Thank you, those were all the questions I had.
Mellor: Thank you, you are now released from your oath.
Gr: Our next witness is Mark Archbold, also on videolink. [Mellor appears on videolink, laughter]
AV guy: we need ten minutes.
AV guy: we need ten minutes.
Brown. The shoes are brown.
Still waiting for Archbold's videolink to be fixed. Not sure how long this will take, but we don't seem to be on a tight schedule today anyway.
Archbold appears on the screen now, they are testing audio.
Archbold appears on the screen now, they are testing audio.
Back.
Usher leads Archbold through the oath. "I swear by mighty God that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
Grabiner confirms his witness statement with him.
Usher leads Archbold through the oath. "I swear by mighty God that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
Grabiner confirms his witness statement with him.
C (Moss): Have you watched Wright's evidence over the last seven days?
Archbold (A): No.
C: Have you read transcripts?
A: No.
C: Have you followed on media or Twitter?
A: No.
Archbold (A): No.
C: Have you read transcripts?
A: No.
C: Have you followed on media or Twitter?
A: No.
C: You were the IT manager for Lasseters. What is your technical background?
A: I've been in the IT industry since the mid-eighties when computers and […] first started to arrive on the scene. I don't have formal training, but Sun Microsystems etc.
C: [Wright did security work for Lasseters?]
A: That's right, I brought Craig on to do that.
C: This was in 1999-2001. [shows doc] This is a Lasseters tasks list DeMorgan would supply. Would you have written this?
A: [thinks] [missed, something about firewalls and Craig]
C: Weekly and annual reports about Lasseters' IT system. DeMorgan provided patch info for firewalls. Productions firewalls had been purchased by Lasseters off the shelf.
A: Yes, Sun systems.
A: I've been in the IT industry since the mid-eighties when computers and […] first started to arrive on the scene. I don't have formal training, but Sun Microsystems etc.
C: [Wright did security work for Lasseters?]
A: That's right, I brought Craig on to do that.
C: This was in 1999-2001. [shows doc] This is a Lasseters tasks list DeMorgan would supply. Would you have written this?
A: [thinks] [missed, something about firewalls and Craig]
C: Weekly and annual reports about Lasseters' IT system. DeMorgan provided patch info for firewalls. Productions firewalls had been purchased by Lasseters off the shelf.
A: Yes, Sun systems.
C: Servers Lasseters had, Lasseters had to provide DeMorgan updated diagrams. They had the up-to-date diagrams?
A: Yes, Craig didn't have […] on what else we were doing, checkpoint firewall, Cisco routers that we had on the overall network that we put in place prior to Craig coming online, we would verify that. If Craig didn't need to look at it, we didn't bother him with it.
C: This was high standard?
A: Yes, we used Deloitte to build the security system. We found other […] We brought Craig on, he had been recommended to me, can't remember by whom.
C: Here's a weekly report for Lasseters Online, 2001. This is one of the tasks mentioned earlier?
A: Yes.
C: [shows pages] List of tools that were used, long glossary. Not much in these reports, is there.
A: That would be very good to us, we accepted that. Craig didn't detect any [problems?] at all. Sometimes the list is better [hard to hear]
C: [shows email from Wright to A] May 2005. He's just emailing you to say hi. So he can't have been in touch with you recently, he's asking if you're still there.
A: Yes, I can understand that.
C: Is this consistent with you not being in touch that often after he left Lasseters?
A: We sort of lost contact, we built our own in-house security division that took over what Craig had built.
A: Yes, Craig didn't have […] on what else we were doing, checkpoint firewall, Cisco routers that we had on the overall network that we put in place prior to Craig coming online, we would verify that. If Craig didn't need to look at it, we didn't bother him with it.
C: This was high standard?
A: Yes, we used Deloitte to build the security system. We found other […] We brought Craig on, he had been recommended to me, can't remember by whom.
C: Here's a weekly report for Lasseters Online, 2001. This is one of the tasks mentioned earlier?
A: Yes.
C: [shows pages] List of tools that were used, long glossary. Not much in these reports, is there.
A: That would be very good to us, we accepted that. Craig didn't detect any [problems?] at all. Sometimes the list is better [hard to hear]
C: [shows email from Wright to A] May 2005. He's just emailing you to say hi. So he can't have been in touch with you recently, he's asking if you're still there.
A: Yes, I can understand that.
C: Is this consistent with you not being in touch that often after he left Lasseters?
A: We sort of lost contact, we built our own in-house security division that took over what Craig had built.
C: [shows another email from Wright] He's asking how's life. Your response is "Hi Craig, how the hell are you doing". 2009 now. You were not that often in contact?
A: No, we had a couple of conversations regarding what he was up to. From memory I can't be a 100% sure.
C: [shows witness statement] You say he worked on firewalls and systems security. You visited him in Sydney and saw his server room where he stored his logs.
A: Yes, he was storing logs from firewalls for analysis, something we were all building on in the hope of [missed]
C: The data was compressed, could be kept for 5-10 years.
A: Yes, that was my understanding of what Craig was doing. Something he developed himself.
C: But no details that are different from a zip file, which also compresses.
A: No.
A: No, we had a couple of conversations regarding what he was up to. From memory I can't be a 100% sure.
C: [shows witness statement] You say he worked on firewalls and systems security. You visited him in Sydney and saw his server room where he stored his logs.
A: Yes, he was storing logs from firewalls for analysis, something we were all building on in the hope of [missed]
C: The data was compressed, could be kept for 5-10 years.
A: Yes, that was my understanding of what Craig was doing. Something he developed himself.
C: But no details that are different from a zip file, which also compresses.
A: No.
C: You say he stored logs from Lasseters in his spare bedroom. You say you had such great faith and respect for him that you believed him when he said it was 100x better than what you had. What did you have?
A: Hashing and [missed]
C: Do you remember…
A: No.
C: [shows DeMorgan doc from his witness statement] 2004. You don't refer to this letter in your evidence. You return to Lasseters in 2004-5. This is a letter from DeMorgan. [quotes Wright] He says blocking sites don't really work.
A: Yes, this is a different conversation to anything with encryption or anything like that. His opinion on the ability to block internet sites from Australia. The government wanted to ban online casinos. They just can't, still can't.
C: Was this a marketing letter to gambling companies?
A: No, some Australians were opening casinos in the UK, and Australians could access them. We were saying they could not be blocked, it was an opinion peace I gave to my CEO and they would pass it to the government if it was warranted.
A: Hashing and [missed]
C: Do you remember…
A: No.
C: [shows DeMorgan doc from his witness statement] 2004. You don't refer to this letter in your evidence. You return to Lasseters in 2004-5. This is a letter from DeMorgan. [quotes Wright] He says blocking sites don't really work.
A: Yes, this is a different conversation to anything with encryption or anything like that. His opinion on the ability to block internet sites from Australia. The government wanted to ban online casinos. They just can't, still can't.
C: Was this a marketing letter to gambling companies?
A: No, some Australians were opening casinos in the UK, and Australians could access them. We were saying they could not be blocked, it was an opinion peace I gave to my CEO and they would pass it to the government if it was warranted.
C: You recall discussion in 2005 about digital currency. Wright asked "have you heard about this digital currency". You didn't record this, did you?
A: No, it was a discussion regarding cryptocurrency, anything about that was no-no for the Northern Territory government, they wouldn't touch it back then. Just a discussion [missed]
C: Cryptocurrency wasn't termed until later.
A: No, digital currency.
C: This was long ago, you can't remember precisely.
A: Fiat currency was blocked by the US, PayPal etc.
C: There's no mention of that in your statement.
A: No.
C: You're looking back at these events knowing now that Wright claims to be Satoshi.
A: His claim is neither here nor there, I'm just looking back.
C: Not my question. You are aware he claims to be Satoshi?
A: Yes.
C: You are looking back 20 years with this knowledge.
A: Yes.
A: No, it was a discussion regarding cryptocurrency, anything about that was no-no for the Northern Territory government, they wouldn't touch it back then. Just a discussion [missed]
C: Cryptocurrency wasn't termed until later.
A: No, digital currency.
C: This was long ago, you can't remember precisely.
A: Fiat currency was blocked by the US, PayPal etc.
C: There's no mention of that in your statement.
A: No.
C: You're looking back at these events knowing now that Wright claims to be Satoshi.
A: His claim is neither here nor there, I'm just looking back.
C: Not my question. You are aware he claims to be Satoshi?
A: Yes.
C: You are looking back 20 years with this knowledge.
A: Yes.
C: You say you believe Wright could be Satoshi because of the encryption and compression software he wrote in the 2000s. Are you aware of other candidates? [lists names] Have you researched them?
A: No.
C: Nor their coding abilities?
A: No.
C: No further questions.
A: My belief is based on my knowledge of Craig's abilities and his thinking. This is just my opinion.
C: You said your opinions. I have no further questions, My Lord.
Mellor: I've got no questions. You are now released.
A: No.
C: Nor their coding abilities?
A: No.
C: No further questions.
A: My belief is based on my knowledge of Craig's abilities and his thinking. This is just my opinion.
C: You said your opinions. I have no further questions, My Lord.
Mellor: I've got no questions. You are now released.
Gr: We are making excellent progress. Final witness is Jones, it's a live witness. [people look around for her]
Mellor: I she expecting to start at 2?
Gr: We'll come back to it. She could be here before lunch.
Mellor: Just let me know. I've got some other things to do [laughter]
Break now. But for how long? We'll see.
Mellor: I she expecting to start at 2?
Gr: We'll come back to it. She could be here before lunch.
Mellor: Just let me know. I've got some other things to do [laughter]
Break now. But for how long? We'll see.
Jones has arrived, and she has taken to the witness box. No word on when we'll continue yet, but probably soon. Nice discussions among the audience in the meantime.
Oh, we're already in session. Mellor thanks Jones for rearranging her schedule. She is sworn in.
Grabiner confirms her witness statement with her.
C (Moss): Have you watched Wright's evidence?
Jones (J): No.
C: Followed on media or Twitter?
J: No.
C: How would you describe your role at nChain?
J: Narrowly defined, I am external. I work on drafting patent applications.
C: You are not listed on [the register] So you're not listed, and not subject to [their rules]. Your passed the exam in 2013. You worked for UDL, and they merged into [names]. You are listed on some of nChains patent from the time.
J: When they were filed, it would be transferred.
C: But you have been.
J: Yes.
C: The patents are not owned by Wright, but by nChain.
J: Correct.
C: When did you leave UDL?
J: February 2020.
C (Moss): Have you watched Wright's evidence?
Jones (J): No.
C: Followed on media or Twitter?
J: No.
C: How would you describe your role at nChain?
J: Narrowly defined, I am external. I work on drafting patent applications.
C: You are not listed on [the register] So you're not listed, and not subject to [their rules]. Your passed the exam in 2013. You worked for UDL, and they merged into [names]. You are listed on some of nChains patent from the time.
J: When they were filed, it would be transferred.
C: But you have been.
J: Yes.
C: The patents are not owned by Wright, but by nChain.
J: Correct.
C: When did you leave UDL?
J: February 2020.
C: You're now [in your own company] Changed name in 2022. It doesn't have a website. It used to have LinkedIn, but not anymore.
J: I put it into hibernate mode.
C: When?
J: Last week.
C: Why?
J: Not because I was hiding anything. I don't really post anything. More because of media interest.
C: It tied your work to nChain?
J: I haven't even looked at it for a while, but I expect so.
J: I put it into hibernate mode.
C: When?
J: Last week.
C: Why?
J: Not because I was hiding anything. I don't really post anything. More because of media interest.
C: It tied your work to nChain?
J: I haven't even looked at it for a while, but I expect so.
C: Seems unusual not to have a website or LinkedIn?
J: I'm fortunate that I don't need one.
C: Because wholly owned by nChain?
J: No, because IP attorneys are scarce, I don't need to advertise. Not because I'm hiding.
C: Is the majority of your time for nChain?
J: [thinks] Probably.
C: Would you describe yourself as a consultant for them?
J: Yes.
C: They are hiding [missed]
J: I can't answer for them.
C: They are aligned closely with BSV.
J: I think that's correct.
C: How would you describe your relationship with Wright?
J: I work with him, not for him, he's associated with my client. I am also friends with him, and would point out I'm also friends with my other clients. I'm in a very lucky position, I can work for who I want to. Professionally I only work with people I think have cool tech. I am friends with all my clients, lunch and dinner, football matches. Visit a castle together. Craig is not special in that regard.
J: I'm fortunate that I don't need one.
C: Because wholly owned by nChain?
J: No, because IP attorneys are scarce, I don't need to advertise. Not because I'm hiding.
C: Is the majority of your time for nChain?
J: [thinks] Probably.
C: Would you describe yourself as a consultant for them?
J: Yes.
C: They are hiding [missed]
J: I can't answer for them.
C: They are aligned closely with BSV.
J: I think that's correct.
C: How would you describe your relationship with Wright?
J: I work with him, not for him, he's associated with my client. I am also friends with him, and would point out I'm also friends with my other clients. I'm in a very lucky position, I can work for who I want to. Professionally I only work with people I think have cool tech. I am friends with all my clients, lunch and dinner, football matches. Visit a castle together. Craig is not special in that regard.
C: About Bitcoin. You say you believe Wright is Satoshi. You're not particularly interested in Bitcoin etc. Would you accept in your job you obviously have an interest in Bitcoin and cryptocurrency?
J: To the degree [nChain] yes, but I don't google etc.
C: You say you have no professional […] to have the position that he is Satoshi, but I say you do [missed]
J: No, whatever My Lord decides at the end of this trial will not have an impact [on my work]
J: I have been at CoinGeek events because I have been required to be there.
C: How many nChain-related marketing events in the last two years?
J: Uhm. Without my diary in front of me, I don't know.
J: To the degree [nChain] yes, but I don't google etc.
C: You say you have no professional […] to have the position that he is Satoshi, but I say you do [missed]
J: No, whatever My Lord decides at the end of this trial will not have an impact [on my work]
J: I have been at CoinGeek events because I have been required to be there.
C: How many nChain-related marketing events in the last two years?
J: Uhm. Without my diary in front of me, I don't know.
C: [shows pic of her and Wright] You're at The Future of Bitcoin, it's a marketing event.
J: It's the very first event he did after the BBC interview. 2017? Something like that.
C: It says 2017.
J: Oh, of course. Was that a marketing event? Don't think by nChain.
C: I suggest it's a marketing event. You say it's not?
J: Not as I understood it for nChain. He was appearing to speak, uhm
C: You're referred to as his patent attorney.
J: Probably a fair description at the time. I took the brunt of the work with Craig, with the drafting.
C: Did you print this tweet out yourself?
J: Someone at UDL.
C: [missed]
J: Fairly standard for all IP firms.
J: It's the very first event he did after the BBC interview. 2017? Something like that.
C: It says 2017.
J: Oh, of course. Was that a marketing event? Don't think by nChain.
C: I suggest it's a marketing event. You say it's not?
J: Not as I understood it for nChain. He was appearing to speak, uhm
C: You're referred to as his patent attorney.
J: Probably a fair description at the time. I took the brunt of the work with Craig, with the drafting.
C: Did you print this tweet out yourself?
J: Someone at UDL.
C: [missed]
J: Fairly standard for all IP firms.
C: [shows "Blockchain Connected" event doc] You're listed as a host. Correct?
J: Yes.
C: It's listed under the umbrella of "Technology Connect".
J: It's for blockchain technology.
C: [missed]
J: Yes, he's welsh.
C: And works at nChain
J: Correct.
C: [quotes "Wright invited to speak" "he's chief scientist for nChain", "Bitcoin SV"] This was an event where Wright's claims to be Satoshi was being promoted. Accept?
J: Not provided by me, would have been provided by nChain. All speakers would have been asked for material to put on the invitation.
C: It's quite clear it was being used by nChain to promote Wright as Satoshi.
J: Yes, but there's no gain for me in what's written there.
C: You intended this and other events.
J: Being associated with Wright is not great for marketing.
C: Why?
J: He's not the greatest character.
J: Yes.
C: It's listed under the umbrella of "Technology Connect".
J: It's for blockchain technology.
C: [missed]
J: Yes, he's welsh.
C: And works at nChain
J: Correct.
C: [quotes "Wright invited to speak" "he's chief scientist for nChain", "Bitcoin SV"] This was an event where Wright's claims to be Satoshi was being promoted. Accept?
J: Not provided by me, would have been provided by nChain. All speakers would have been asked for material to put on the invitation.
C: It's quite clear it was being used by nChain to promote Wright as Satoshi.
J: Yes, but there's no gain for me in what's written there.
C: You intended this and other events.
J: Being associated with Wright is not great for marketing.
C: Why?
J: He's not the greatest character.
C: [shows doc] You attended.
J: Yes.
C: Of the 4 individuals you can see, they are all associated with nChain.
J: Yes.
C: That's Jimmy Nguyen?
J: Yes.
C: nChain is backed by Ayre, who backs BSV. [quotes] Here's a picture of you, saying nChain patents can only be used by BSV companies. It's clear it's associating nChain and BSV.
J: Yes.
C: [shows video: "One World Chain", Nguyen, Scott Adams, Jones introduced as patent attorney] You are referred to as council (sp?) of nChain. Typically for internal people?
J: i have never been internal at nChain.
C: But you accept that anyone viewing that would believe that your job is associated with nChain?
J: My Lord, when a legal representative speaks at an event, they don't say oh by the way, my other client list is… No, I haven't said I'm external, but you wouldn't expect me to. The video moves on quickly.
J: Yes.
C: Of the 4 individuals you can see, they are all associated with nChain.
J: Yes.
C: That's Jimmy Nguyen?
J: Yes.
C: nChain is backed by Ayre, who backs BSV. [quotes] Here's a picture of you, saying nChain patents can only be used by BSV companies. It's clear it's associating nChain and BSV.
J: Yes.
C: [shows video: "One World Chain", Nguyen, Scott Adams, Jones introduced as patent attorney] You are referred to as council (sp?) of nChain. Typically for internal people?
J: i have never been internal at nChain.
C: But you accept that anyone viewing that would believe that your job is associated with nChain?
J: My Lord, when a legal representative speaks at an event, they don't say oh by the way, my other client list is… No, I haven't said I'm external, but you wouldn't expect me to. The video moves on quickly.
C: You didn't answer my question. It would look like you worked for nChain.
J: I think some people could misinterpret that.
C: [shows transcript of the event] [quotes] You've been involved in nChain's patent process since early on. And you say [discusses patent] When you refer to number 42, that's one of the 3 patents you refer to in your evidence?
J: Correct.
C: And you say "obviously nChain is aligning very closely with BSV". [shows CAH wig picture by mistake] [shows article saying private investors acquire nChain] It says patent attorney at nChain. Closely associated with Wright, do you accept that?
J: Yes.
C: [shows CoinGeek event doc] Where was this?
J: I think Slovenia.
C: Yes. [quotes] "so much to learn from Wright, IPv6 etc" It's another example of you being associated with nChain, CoinGeek and Wright.
Gr: What's the purpose of this?
C: Jones is closely associated. It's only fair to her that I establish that.
C: Do you accept you are associated with Wright and nChain's patents?
J: [missed]
J: I think some people could misinterpret that.
C: [shows transcript of the event] [quotes] You've been involved in nChain's patent process since early on. And you say [discusses patent] When you refer to number 42, that's one of the 3 patents you refer to in your evidence?
J: Correct.
C: And you say "obviously nChain is aligning very closely with BSV". [shows CAH wig picture by mistake] [shows article saying private investors acquire nChain] It says patent attorney at nChain. Closely associated with Wright, do you accept that?
J: Yes.
C: [shows CoinGeek event doc] Where was this?
J: I think Slovenia.
C: Yes. [quotes] "so much to learn from Wright, IPv6 etc" It's another example of you being associated with nChain, CoinGeek and Wright.
Gr: What's the purpose of this?
C: Jones is closely associated. It's only fair to her that I establish that.
C: Do you accept you are associated with Wright and nChain's patents?
J: [missed]
C: Wright boasts about patents, he said in McCormack that he has more than […] combined. I need to clarify what you regard as a patented invention. Do you regard an EP for a single invented concept that has multiple designations as 1 or 3 patents?
J: Each individual granted I would consider a patent. 3.
C: So the same invention could be filed in multiple places and it would count multiple times?
J: [confirms]
C: It's easy to conflate the number of patents and the number of patent families.
J: My Lord, I don't recall having inflated anyone's patent portfolio.
C: There have been many comments about the number of patents. Count by patents or families?
J: You just referred to me as nChain's patent attorney. I'm not employed by them, it's misleading. They do that, but it's incorrect.
C: You have been referred to as such publicly without correcting it.
J: We are sitting in a court room and you incorrectly referred to me, I want that corrected.
C: How many granted patents at UDL where Wright was named as sole inventor?
J: Not clear what you're asking, I don't have access to nChain's internal system or my previous firm's data.
C: How many patents with Wright as sole inventor? According to our research, it's 6. Every other patent has another inventor on it.
J: That's correct. I'm talking about the early days. Since 2018 I've been at arms length. They've brought [someone] an board, I've stepped back, My Lord, from nChain. There was much more going on internally and all the rest of it. In the early days, some researchers were added, internal convention. Many companies will do this, as a kudos to them.
J: Each individual granted I would consider a patent. 3.
C: So the same invention could be filed in multiple places and it would count multiple times?
J: [confirms]
C: It's easy to conflate the number of patents and the number of patent families.
J: My Lord, I don't recall having inflated anyone's patent portfolio.
C: There have been many comments about the number of patents. Count by patents or families?
J: You just referred to me as nChain's patent attorney. I'm not employed by them, it's misleading. They do that, but it's incorrect.
C: You have been referred to as such publicly without correcting it.
J: We are sitting in a court room and you incorrectly referred to me, I want that corrected.
C: How many granted patents at UDL where Wright was named as sole inventor?
J: Not clear what you're asking, I don't have access to nChain's internal system or my previous firm's data.
C: How many patents with Wright as sole inventor? According to our research, it's 6. Every other patent has another inventor on it.
J: That's correct. I'm talking about the early days. Since 2018 I've been at arms length. They've brought [someone] an board, I've stepped back, My Lord, from nChain. There was much more going on internally and all the rest of it. In the early days, some researchers were added, internal convention. Many companies will do this, as a kudos to them.
C: So it's possible that Wright has been added for kudos reasons?
J: Not my understanding.
C: There are over 60 instances of Wright being added as long as 3 years after filing. It's not unusual once or twice, but over 60 times is unusual?
J: Speaks to an internal policy change, I can't speculate.
C: Patents you rely on in your statement. 3 patents, 42, 222, 32. Your evidence says patent 42 and others that Wright was inventing small details relating to blockchain?
J: You're asking about my comments that Craig invents small building blocks? That's correct.
C: These patents demonstrate that Wright could be Satoshi?
J: Yes, so, thinking back to when I wrote it, I named them because I wanted to give some examples of the inventions Craig is known for. I think you're correct.
C: Anyone inventing anything relating to Bitcoin or blockchain has no bearing on that person being Satoshi.
J: I would agree.
C: There's a lot about your patents, you think he shows he's Satoshi? They're in your evidence.
J: I think so, in my opinion.
C: It has a bearing? I'm trying to find out why this evidence is in here.
J: I was trying to tie his IP and way of thinking to the Satoshi question. It's aligned with someone who is potentially a developer of Bitcoin.
J: Not my understanding.
C: There are over 60 instances of Wright being added as long as 3 years after filing. It's not unusual once or twice, but over 60 times is unusual?
J: Speaks to an internal policy change, I can't speculate.
C: Patents you rely on in your statement. 3 patents, 42, 222, 32. Your evidence says patent 42 and others that Wright was inventing small details relating to blockchain?
J: You're asking about my comments that Craig invents small building blocks? That's correct.
C: These patents demonstrate that Wright could be Satoshi?
J: Yes, so, thinking back to when I wrote it, I named them because I wanted to give some examples of the inventions Craig is known for. I think you're correct.
C: Anyone inventing anything relating to Bitcoin or blockchain has no bearing on that person being Satoshi.
J: I would agree.
C: There's a lot about your patents, you think he shows he's Satoshi? They're in your evidence.
J: I think so, in my opinion.
C: It has a bearing? I'm trying to find out why this evidence is in here.
J: I was trying to tie his IP and way of thinking to the Satoshi question. It's aligned with someone who is potentially a developer of Bitcoin.
C: Where does the number 42 come from?
J: It was number 42 on a list of inventions that Craig had already devised [missed]
C: You haven't seen the list
J: No.
C: he's not the sole inventor of these patents.
J: May not be the sole inventor. Sometimes people have been named when they shouldn't.
C: [reads inventor name] This document sets out prior art. It's not inventive.
J: I didn't draft this patent.
C: One common reason for rejection is that the claim is too narrow.
J: When you try to get it granted, there's a negotiation.
C: If you get back an EPO rejection, the first rejection is that it's drafted too narrowly.
J: Yes, I say that.
C: You don't mention EPO recorded it doesn't meet requirements. You don't mention that.
J: I think that's an omission on my part.
C: When patents come to litigation, more broad searches can be carried out.
Gr: What is the relevance? We want to know about the identity of Satoshi.
Mellor: You lead this evidence.
Gr: it's in the evidence, but supremely irrelevant.
C: I whole-heartedly agree. [court laughs]
Gr: If these paragraphs are not cross-examined, I won't bring it up in closing.
Mellor: You can keep it short.
C: I am, My Lord.
J: It was number 42 on a list of inventions that Craig had already devised [missed]
C: You haven't seen the list
J: No.
C: he's not the sole inventor of these patents.
J: May not be the sole inventor. Sometimes people have been named when they shouldn't.
C: [reads inventor name] This document sets out prior art. It's not inventive.
J: I didn't draft this patent.
C: One common reason for rejection is that the claim is too narrow.
J: When you try to get it granted, there's a negotiation.
C: If you get back an EPO rejection, the first rejection is that it's drafted too narrowly.
J: Yes, I say that.
C: You don't mention EPO recorded it doesn't meet requirements. You don't mention that.
J: I think that's an omission on my part.
C: When patents come to litigation, more broad searches can be carried out.
Gr: What is the relevance? We want to know about the identity of Satoshi.
Mellor: You lead this evidence.
Gr: it's in the evidence, but supremely irrelevant.
C: I whole-heartedly agree. [court laughs]
Gr: If these paragraphs are not cross-examined, I won't bring it up in closing.
Mellor: You can keep it short.
C: I am, My Lord.
C: [shows patent 42] It says the inventor is Wright. Here's a list of various patents. 2015. Document is listed as being DeMorgan. 183 patent ideas. No owners are listed. See number 42. Here we see owners starting being listed, staff names. One for Wright has been listed. [shows new version] No owner is listed for 42. [shows email from Matthews] It has rules and […] doc. Pre-concept. See table, it records who is doing what and when. Pre-concept phrase, Wright is listed as 30%. Then 100%. Says staff is doing most of it. Mr Savannah, not Wright. The majority of the work is done by Savannah, accept?
J: My Lord, I have never seen this document before, I'm not qualified…
C: That's fine, but it shows Savannah?
J: I don't understand the document and the phrases there.
C: The key point is to create something that works. A teleportation machine is useless unless […]?
J: You need technical details so it could be put into working state.
C: Difference between big-picture idea and practical invention.
J: Patent attorneys draft patent applications for inventions that are not fully fleshed out. It's not uncommon for filing really early. You want as much detail as possible.
J: My Lord, I have never seen this document before, I'm not qualified…
C: That's fine, but it shows Savannah?
J: I don't understand the document and the phrases there.
C: The key point is to create something that works. A teleportation machine is useless unless […]?
J: You need technical details so it could be put into working state.
C: Difference between big-picture idea and practical invention.
J: Patent attorneys draft patent applications for inventions that are not fully fleshed out. It's not uncommon for filing really early. You want as much detail as possible.
C: [shows October version] Under 42, staff's name as listed as owner and not Wright. In the rest, Wright is listed fewer times than Mr Savannah. On the internal record, Savannah was the person coming up with the invention.
J: I've never seen it before, I can't comment.
C: You rely on 42 as an example of evidence towards Wright being Satoshi. I've just shown that it was actually Savannah. Is it possible he was the inventor and not Wright?
J: Possible and actual are different.
C: Is it possible?
J: Lots of things are possible.
J: I agree it's possible.
Mellor: That evidence, what use is it?
C: She's lying on this document. There are 2 inventors, not just Wright.
Mellor: Wright wasn't challenged on this.
C: [missed]
Mellor: How much longer?
C: 15 minutes.
Mellor: More of the same?
C: No.
J: I'm happy to continue.
J: I've never seen it before, I can't comment.
C: You rely on 42 as an example of evidence towards Wright being Satoshi. I've just shown that it was actually Savannah. Is it possible he was the inventor and not Wright?
J: Possible and actual are different.
C: Is it possible?
J: Lots of things are possible.
J: I agree it's possible.
Mellor: That evidence, what use is it?
C: She's lying on this document. There are 2 inventors, not just Wright.
Mellor: Wright wasn't challenged on this.
C: [missed]
Mellor: How much longer?
C: 15 minutes.
Mellor: More of the same?
C: No.
J: I'm happy to continue.
C: Do you know who the core inventor of the other 2 patents?
J: No.
C: Savannah for 222 and [other]
J: My Lord, we drafted and firewalled those patent application. We would ask who the inventors were going to be, and filed based on client instruction. I have no internal knowledge. I wasn't party on management or invention meetings, policy or anything. I worked with the inventor to draft patents.
C: You're taking nChain information on face value?
J: Yes. There were times we were in front of a white-board with Craig and he stepped through the invention and we drafted. There's a difference between patents before I met him.
C: I you aware of others being identified as Satoshi? [lists names]
J: I'm aware, don't know much.
C: You don't know the scope of their abilities?
J: Haven't researched.
C: You can speculate because what Wright has told you.
J: I don't actually talk to Craig or anyone else about whether he's Satoshi. Only 2 times I've spoken to him about Satoshi. He's never said to me "I wrote Bitcoin", not relevant for my work.
J: No.
C: Savannah for 222 and [other]
J: My Lord, we drafted and firewalled those patent application. We would ask who the inventors were going to be, and filed based on client instruction. I have no internal knowledge. I wasn't party on management or invention meetings, policy or anything. I worked with the inventor to draft patents.
C: You're taking nChain information on face value?
J: Yes. There were times we were in front of a white-board with Craig and he stepped through the invention and we drafted. There's a difference between patents before I met him.
C: I you aware of others being identified as Satoshi? [lists names]
J: I'm aware, don't know much.
C: You don't know the scope of their abilities?
J: Haven't researched.
C: You can speculate because what Wright has told you.
J: I don't actually talk to Craig or anyone else about whether he's Satoshi. Only 2 times I've spoken to him about Satoshi. He's never said to me "I wrote Bitcoin", not relevant for my work.
C: No further questions.
Gr: Unsurprisingly [missed], laughter
Gunning: Question of Wuille.
Mellor: Oh yes. Is there anything in Wright's responses you want [Wuille to comment on?]
Gunning: No
Mellor: Then I'm not going to be dragged to the witness box.
Gunning. He wouldn't need to be dragged.
Mellor: I was thinking of SPV, it's in the wp.
Gunning: I can speak to him about that.
We're done for today, already. Thanks for reading!
Gr: Unsurprisingly [missed], laughter
Gunning: Question of Wuille.
Mellor: Oh yes. Is there anything in Wright's responses you want [Wuille to comment on?]
Gunning: No
Mellor: Then I'm not going to be dragged to the witness box.
Gunning. He wouldn't need to be dragged.
Mellor: I was thinking of SPV, it's in the wp.
Gunning: I can speak to him about that.
We're done for today, already. Thanks for reading!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
