Thread by @kurtwuckertjr

March 14, 2024

Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright

"The Satoshi Trial" Master Thread.

Thursday, DAY 22

PLEASE RETWEET FOR MAX CIRCULATION.

This thread will contain advertisements from sponsors and partners.

**AD**

This X thread brought to you in part by the Bezel "Refer a Friend" Program. If you're in the market for a timepiece, read on.

As a lover of vintage and modern mechanical watches, I use Bezel for my purchasing needs for a few reasons

Convenience: Shop thousands of the most collectable watches on the planet from all of the top brands, all in one place.

Authenticity: Everything is sent to Bezel's in-house experts for multi-point Bezel certification before it gets shipped.

Concierge: Whether you want to source a hard to find watch or need recommendations, your private client advisor.

For a limited time, the promo code KURTWUCKERTJR will save you $200 any watch sold through Bezel.

Shop Now

shop.getbezel.com

Grab: Arising from yesterday... We will provide you with an un-redacted version of Wright 11. And some patent questions arising from yesterday. You asked about the date of the first patent filing. Stolen by Jaime Wilson, but it was about a key sharing system from 2010-2011. He and Wilson patented the idea in 2011.

I can confirm that date from this US version of the patent which Shoosmiths downloaded from public database yesterday. CSW and Wilson as inventors, and it's dated April 2019 (granted). The application in August 2017. But for the purposes of the question is the foreign application data showing the Australia version October 2011 and June 2012. Confirmed by paragraph 1.

The subject matter of the patent is described on page one as well. "A system for operating a registry..." Later, it makes reference to the system using pub and priv keys. Step 930, the system creates a digital signature using the priv key of user 1... In short, this doc confirms his statement in cross exam.

Cerian Jones said in her witness statement that the first patent she handled for nChain was filed in Feb 2016. Then she explained CSW had 1300 research docs by June 2015 ready to patented.

Can I also mention about Hearn's patents... The connection between the bitcoin system and Hearn patents at the time of the 2016 dinner.

Hearn's patent was filed hastily in August of 2016 - shortly after their dinner. You'll see it's a US patent granted 2021. Inventor is Hearn and another person. "Decentralized, distributed ledger."

The dinner was in July, and the filing was in August.

Mellor: This doesn't take matters further because you have to look at all the patents filed by R3.

Grab: Absolutely, but the nature of this patent has clear connection to bitcoin. Its abstract even references the bitcoin white paper. We respectfully suggest that Hearn was, in fact, seeking information from CSW about his research for this patent. He protested, but we suggest the contrary.

Mellor: there must be hundreds of thousands of patents citing bitcoin?
Grab: I'm sure you're right. But Mike Hearn filed this one, and his testimony now rings hollow.

Grab: Lastly on the Quill minutes pad, the doc from the wayback machine. I want to clarify CSW's point. COPA's case is based on the hearsay of Lee and Stefarkis. They say the pad didn't exist until a later date, and COPA says the pad wasn't available in the marketplace until 2012. This was the basis for showing that the pad was available at least as far back as 2009. The July 2009 Wayback Machine snapshot was available in 2009 which is more than 3 years before COPA claims it was available in the marketplace. In short, the doc corroborates CSW's evidence that the hearsay evidence is not correct, and fits what Wright said under cross exam.

Grab: Next, I'd like to go to relief. COPA seeks declarations, injunctions and orders for dissemination. They seek that CSW is not the author of the white paper, the copyright of it and COPA is free to use the white paper because it doesn't infringe.

The declaratory remedies are in the negative. The prime purpose is to do justice. The law is only to be used for enforcement of legal right in disputes. Here, it's important to understand the nature of the right or rights claimed.

One of the curious features of this case is that he's Satoshi and therefore the author of the white paper, and that doesn't impact COPA.

We know they aren't Satoshi, doesn't represent him, nor did they right the white paper or have copyright rights to the paper. The court shouldn't be in the business of such a dispute.

The identity declaration...

Mellor: It seems late for this point in closing. CSW could have sought to strike this out from the start.
Grab: Why?
Mellor: You're saying COPA's position is academic?
Grab: The declaration is to be determined by the court. The 2nd declaration is about copyright. One can immediately see force in that point, but nothing in the first. It's not sensible to have applied to strike out the identity point. There's a distinction to saying he isn't the owner of the copyright
Mellor: Are you asking me to declare if he is Satoshi?
Grab: I think we could, but that could even be so after basic deliberation. My attention has been brought to the pleading. Claimant seeks declaration that he isn't the author of the paper or the owner of the copyright. In our defense, we say in the particulars of claim that it was always a contested issue.

The copyright of the paper is a legal right. Such a declaration has no practical purpose because if you determine identity, the declaration adds nothing to the judgment. COPA can't infringe a right he doesn't have, but if he the declaration is refused, then the others don't apply.

On the injunction, some old cases shed light, and are quite fun... On injuntion, COPA is seeking novel, fanciful relief. They want to restrain him from taking steps to assert he is the author of the white paper. SUppose CSW went to speaker's corner in Hyde Park and stated on his soapbox that they judgment was wrong. He would be exposed to fine or punishment. But we don't live in Russia or North Korea. He should be free to tell anyone who he says he is. He believes it's part of his identity. Whether the court agrees or not is neither here nor there. The court has never made such a determination before - ever.

English courts cannot order injunctions against everyone in the world. The equitable principle is to enforce legal rights. The Supreme Court in the Convoy Case - much as it may irritate people - And the Siskina (SP?) case... It's instructive. the meaning of legal rights, and the interest of the claimant. We ought to look at that.

An injunction can only be granted to protect the rights and interests of those with rights and interests. This isn't up to the caprice of the judge. It is decided, there must be an independent basis for injunction. The key bit is that there must be an identified interest of the claimant in order for injunction to be granted.

So what is that interest? What is COPA's interest? [if they aren't the author or the copyright holder]

In this Ashford case, two houses were to be named "Ashford Lodge." the older one wanted an injunction, but it couldn't be established what right had been violated. It was determined, again, that there was no ownership or equitable right being violated.

In another case, the Countess used the title "countess" after divorce from the count. This infuriated the new wife and the Lord. Imagine both women trying to use the same hairdressor, Lord... The Earl couldn't establish any legal right to support his claim. "where the marriage of a commoner is dissolved at the behest of a scorned woman..." Essentially, she can keep the title because it was her identity. While the judge can understand the new wife complaining, there is no substance in the complaint because they suffer no damage and have no right to injunction.

Remember, there is a lot of law and principle about what people are allowed to do. This is about water which flows under one's land to another's. Whether someone moves the water for his own purposes whether benign or malicious is irrelevant. The judge ordered that because everything done on his own land is done to his own water. Deprevation of the water to someone else is only bad if they can establish that there was a RIGHT to that water. This was rejected.

CSW isn't depriving COPA of any rights. He isn't asserting anything that would infringe on their rights. COPA hasn't explained how their rights are violated even if CSW's claim is untrue.

COPA also lacks logic and is unsupported by authority. COPA is attempting to dodge the fact that its rights haven't been infringed. They hinge on the Samsung Electronics case as support for its proposition. In this case, Apple complained that Samsung's Galaxy Tablet infringed on their patents. Judge found that there was no infringement and ordered Apple to publicize that there was no infringement. Apple appealed but failed.

The publicity order is recorded. It was held that Apple must publicize that they had lost. The court took the view that the publicity order was an adjunct to the judgment of non-infringement.

CSW is a non-infringer. COPA isn't in a position to assert copyright. So they can't injunct against CSW. In the Samsung case, Apple could continue to criticize Samsung. But they can't do anything else.

The judge refused to injunct against Apple on that point.

Samsung wanted a declaration of no fault by the high court that their tablets don't infringe on Apple.

On freedom of speech, an injunction would infringe on freedom of speech. This was argued in the Samsung case and described as "sinister" because people have the right to disagree with any judgment.

The only new point made by COPA was on a case called "Flitcroff vs Price"(sp?)

COPA relies on that case that abuse of process is a serious matter. There's no dispute, but it's irrelevant to the injunction being sought. The abuse of flitcroff was about costs and false claims. There was no injunction issue in that case. It was simply a cost case.

COPA's injunction interfere with CSW's freedom of expression and his human rights. I'd like to highlight the court must be sure to enforce his freedom of expression, and that emphasis is reinforced by the fact that it is a core right of the human rights convention. In deciding to interfere with such a thing, it must be proportionate to what is being pursued.

Is COPA's position more important than CSW's fundamental rights? The right way to do that would be in an extended civil restraint order. COPA hasn't sought such an order - because it's obvious they would fail. Their attempt to do it through the backdoor in this court are unjustified. The common law protects expression except against serious threat, but COPA can't claim this.

Equity does nothing in vain. If CSW isn't Satoshi or didn't author the paper, that will receive wide publicity. I submit that they don't need declaration or injunction because the world would learn about the decision quickly and thoroughly. The impact of the proposed injunction would stop CSW from appealing or defending against criminal proceedings which COPA has implied and asked for. COPA's main purpose is to prevent CSW from using the law in the future. This would be a civil restraint order from the backdoor.

There are proceedings pending abroad in Norway, and it's unprecedented to say he can't assert himself.

FIVE MINUTE BREAK

COPA asserts it has the right of Samsung from a case of direct commercial harm due to the plummeting of market share of tablet sales. Apple had sought to enforce an inconsistent judgment in Germany, and the court of appeal held that a publicity order could be proper, but they agreed that such orders shouldn't be the norm. They wanted to make sure publicity orders don't take on a life of their own.

This case makes the opposite of COPA's hopes. They are unlikely to be quiet about their success if they succeed. It would be widely reported, and they would have no hardship disseminating news.

We submit that you should consider the relief issue. Don't defer until after judgment. The impression I have is that COPA wants this issue pushed until after judgment, but I don't see why.

Mellor: I can decide on these points.

Grab: Seeing this patent is from Jaime and Craig, we learned that the application from Australia was made only in the name of Jamie. My client was added as co-inventor in 2012.

and I have nothing further.

Hough: It's striking what Grab passed over. No response on the pleaded forgeries, errors or inconsistencies including those Satoshi would know.

Our case is that CSW is dishonest and only accepted if corroborated.

Grab referred to the significance of CSW's ASD. The adjustments were put in place. But we stress that it's no excuse for his dishonesty. His expertise is unsupported. The best evidence of what he's good at can be found in his CV and LinkedIn, blogs, etc... Emails to Lynams or Microsoft. He is an IT Security guy. Nothing about digital currency.

His work for QDOS didn't have anything to do with blockchain, but only IT logging. The early Satoshi comms and assertions were ONLY assertions with no special knowledge. He made clear mistakes on transactions, Malmi, Patch Tuesday or he relied on forged docs.

He relied on the original bitcoin code and the poker game. It was unfinished, auto-generated and wasn't implemented and wasn't used in bitcoin. To say it establishes a link between CSW and Satoshi is a hopeless submission. It advances nothing.

Turning to the patents, nChain's patents start in 2016. Wright was only named as a sole inventor on 6 of them. The earlier patent from 2011, it was about data processing and didn't use the word bitcoin anywhere. This was contrary to Grab's claim that it specifically claimed to bitcoin. the Aussie document also started with only Wilson. It also made no reference to cryptographic keys until later.

This patent has only been addressed late in the day, but it's no basis at all for showing CSW had established expertise in blockchain in 2011, let alone 2008.

Hearn differs from many devs on block size, but he isn't Satoshi. We shouldn't get into the BSV dispute but to suggest that it's a serious alternative is laughable. Look at the price! [fiat cucked British lawyer... shocking...]

Getting to the point that CSW could sign a message from an early block. This would not be a consequence-free act. It would tell the world that the real Satoshi is alive and could dump the price. But why would he reveal himself just for CSW?

Pleading isn't a game. Our whole pleaded case is that CSW's claims are a lie. going back to Flynn's submissions, he says "everything he does is dishonest." the entire claim and anything to support it is dishonest. That's our case. As we saw on Tuesday, CSW never reliably proved possession of the keys. We can't plead a positive case because it's outside of our knowledge.

CSW never provided reliable proof, and his chances of surviving a sterile signing is less likely than the deck chairs surviving the sinking Titanic.

It was suggested that not knowing how CSW subverted the signings is irrelevant because these sessions don't show that he had the keys. He didn't prove he had them.

Turning to Meiklejohn's criticisms. Saying they "seemed" vs "was" brand new as a distinction. She put it the better way from the evidence. Gavin said one of the ways he could have been bamboozled is with a computer that could have not been new.

She made an oral remark in cross that the interaction was casual. He said this many times. We have 3 points. CSW never addressed the malware accusation. Typo squatting can be very effective. And DNS attacks aren't impossibly difficult. He also addressed Madden's report. None of his docs could be treated as authentic. If Wright had thought the environment was important, we would expect him to say it. This case was supposed to be about the mountains of evidence. then it was untrustworthy metadata... then he doesn't go into his IT systems because they were irrelevant until after Madden's first report.

As for the suggestion that CSW should have given all evidence before Madden's findings.

[missed a bit...]

Experts all agreed they found clear evidence of manipulation. The IT environment wouldn't have changed their findings.

Grab also said he didn't say his files hadn't been touched. But that's backward. If he knew the docs couldn't be sterile, it was on him to say so. He needed to put forth docs to rely upon. If there was issue, it's hard to see how they could have even been reliance docs in the first place.

The attack on Madden's expertise is awful. We are happy to have his things re-read. There's no inconsistencies, and his report is cogent. The reason he gave for not getting an assistant was that he wanted to do things himself. The assertion that B&B did anything wrong - and this is important - there's no evidence that anything was done wrong.

Grab: My complaint was directed at independence of the expert not at B&B.

Hough: If we weren't seeking to influence...

Grab: I'm saying there's no attack on the solicitors.

Hough: then how could we improperly influence his work?

The admissibility of Wright 11. We retain our objections.

On Jenkins, we refer to the Granath evidence on "shown" a paper about blockchain. The transcripts were accurate.

His sudden remembering of the Timecoin paper was purely an invention. We aren't accusing CSW of tampering because we have no idea.

On the Hearn evidence, we don't dispute the IP discussion. We say it was an excuse for shutting down conversations about basic, original bitcoin. They were for the natural purpose of establishing whether CSW was Satoshi - not matters of recent development.

CSW couldn't even get hearsay evidence from anyone. The basis of our submissions are clear.

A short point on Github, there's no evidence that Satoshi had any objection to moving to Github. He seemed happy to see Malmi take it over.

As for Wrightson and Fush, our objections are firmly founded on their own assertions.

On LaTex, there's a plain contradiction in saying it was carefully coded for spacing and such vs "I wrote it in OpenOffice and moved it to LaTex."

On the BDO Quill minutes. The point is that this doc was dumped on us at the last minute, so we haven't been able to inquire. But it doesn't establish that the design would appear when needed. We can't even see an image of the doc, and we have not been able to get a response. There's also irony in asking us to accept evidence from an anon Reddit user.

Also, on Matonis, the hearsay notice about Matonis objecting to being a witness isn't useful. We don't have any more detail on the Matonis signing session.

On relief, we ask the court NOT to address relief.

Authorship isn't merely an ordinary English expression. It has weight on copyright. Our 2nd declaration is that CSW isn't the owner of the copyright, and any use of the copyright is intended to deal with our case on the MIT license.

On commercial utility, CSW has threatened to sue COPA and its members, and has sued them in the Core proceedings. So the issue is far from hypothetical or academic.

A negative declaration should be held when there's a commerical interest. It's typical to see a negative declaration in many cases. On injunctive relief, this is a very unusual case, so it will be necessary to be thorough. Think of the jurisdiction issues when criminal law lacks.

We have a particular problem of CSW making a campaign of litigation to assert that he is Satoshi. He should be precluded from this because he has also sued ill-resourced bloggers for defamation and others.

Mellor: The bloggers would be able to get summary judgement based on my judgment if its decided that way?
Hough: Why?
Mellor: Abuse of process
Hough: We agree it's abuse

Hough: In the Samsung case, it was unjustified, but this is a different sort of case. Depending on the terms of judgment, we don't think he should be able to assert his ownership. If you find for our side, the threshold may be met.

Gunning: I'll go quickly. On the poker code, first, it was deleted by Satoshi anyways. and 2nd, the poker stuff isn't the only artifact from WX formbuilder. There was also ebay-style artifacts in the code.

I wasn't going to saying anything about Grab's points. On Merkle trees, I took CSW through how Merkle trees work, and he agreed. On a binary search tree, it enables fast lookup because the tx has been hashed. It isn't a search tree. If there's any doubt, this could have been explored with Meiklejohn. On Timecoins/Jenkins, I was tempted to play the video so we could see how it played out, but the transcript is definitely right.

It was an open ended question about seeing a blockchain paper. His response was No. Then you can see the way he discusses how he might get something in the post. It's absurd to think he had seen a timecoin document.

The final point relates to relief and freedom of speech. We are looking at a man who brought libel proceedings agains tPeter McCormack and Magnus Granath and proceedings against publishing the white paper. This is a man who doesn't care about freedom of speech. In the McCormack prodeedings, an order was sought to publish a summary. Same in Granath.

An article IDs a letter Hodlonaut received. He was told to say he was wrong to claim he's satoshi and he was sorry. So Wright has pursued a campaign to disseminate info that he's Satoshi, but finds it wrong to see publication that he is not.

I'd like to remind you what my clients have had to deal with. "I will make sure that anyone who says bitcoin is decentralized isn't just sanctioned. I'll make sure the court knows that devs don't control the network. They will pulled up on perjury and arrested as criminal They are all criminals. All going to prisons for decades. The worst prison they can go to. If a dev says they can't make the change, I will make sure they spend so long in prison that their grandchildren will be old when they get out. It's not cypherpunk or anarchist. I'll be sure they face perjury when they lie. They need to follow the law or go to prison."

You have presented with the man who made those threats. He is a charlatan, and should be treated that way in judgement.

Mellor: You have been helpful. I'll prepare a fairly lengthy written judgment. I have reached a conclusion that I will explain at length in written. But now, I determine he is not the author of the white paper or the person Satoshi Nakamoto, and he is not the creator of the bitcoin system, and not the author of the software. Further relief in my written judgment. I'm afraid you'll have to wait for more.

Thank you very much.