S Tominaga Profile picture
Oct 3 5 tweets 2 min read Read on X
Let us, then, examine the true nature of entities like Unified Patents LLC and COPA through the lens of reason, not deception.

These organizations cloak themselves in the rhetoric of justice, all while perpetuating an insidious game that serves not the innovator, but the corporate giants that feed off the ideas of others.

They masquerade as defenders of intellectual property, but what they are, in essence, is the antithesis of that. They stand not for the mind that creates but for the bureaucracy that seeks to enslave it.
Unified Patents LLC does not protect against so-called "patent trolls"—it is the troll.

With their clever legal maneuvering, they undermine the very concept of individual ownership and innovation, allowing large corporations to crush the weak, to extinguish the light of invention before it has even had the chance to shine.

COPA, under the guise of some high-minded alliance, is nothing more than a shield—a litigation buffer designed to protect these corporate titans from the consequences of their own mediocrity.
What is their game?

It is simple.
They hold just enough funding to weather legal battles without consequence.

Should one entity fall, they will simply rise from the ashes under a different name, carrying on their insidious work, indifferent to the creators left in ruin.

These entities do not innovate; they litigate. And when they lose? They lose nothing—because their structure is designed to shield them, to phoenix into a new aggressive form, continuing their assault on the very thing that keeps progress alive: individual innovation.
This is the moral inversion of our time—where the creators, the thinkers, the minds that drive civilization forward are vilified as "trolls," while the true looters are heralded as protectors of the system. They claim to fight for fairness, but fairness is not their goal.

Their goal is to ensure that the strong—the corporations with endless resources—never have to innovate again. Instead, they can simply litigate their way to dominance, crushing the very individuals who would dare to challenge them with a better idea.
And so, what we are witnessing is the slow, deliberate death of innovation, buried beneath layers of legal sophistry and corporate doublespeak.

It is not the so-called "patent trolls" that threaten the future of progress—it is these entities, these litigation machines, that have no purpose other than to shield the mediocre from the consequences of their own inability to create.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with S Tominaga

S Tominaga Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @CsTominaga

Oct 4
Today, I want to talk to you about something deeply important, something that stands at the heart of who we are as individuals and as a nation: the idea of freedom and the power of the individual.

Throughout history, we’ve seen the struggle between the individual and the collective, between those who seek to build and create, and those who seek to take and control.

And today, in the world of technology and innovation, we see that same struggle playing out.
There’s a growing chorus out there claiming We are all Satoshi.

They say Bitcoin belongs to everyone, that it’s a gift to the masses, something that no one can own.

But let me tell you, Satoshi never said that. Not once did Satoshi declare, This is yours.

Satoshi never said, I give this to you as a gift.

No, those who are claiming this now are not honoring Bitcoin’s principles—they’re twisting them. And when they say, This is ours, when they push this idea of collective ownership, they’re not receiving something given to them.

They’re taking it.

And that’s theft.
It’s the very antithesis of everything Bitcoin stands for.

Bitcoin wasn’t created for the masses to rise up as a mob and seize power.

It was created as a tool of freedom, for the individual, by the individual.

It’s about responsibility, accountability, and ownership. It’s about the right to create, to build, and to own what you’ve worked for. And those who are now trying to hijack that idea, who claim that Bitcoin belongs to all, are doing so for one reason: power.

They want control over you, over me, and over the very essence of what it means to be free.
Read 8 tweets
Oct 3
Let’s break this down logically. When BTC reaches any level of significant use, the transaction fees skyrocket. We’ve seen fees in excess of $50 or more per transaction during peak times.

The fundamental issue is that BTC wasn’t designed to handle a high volume of transactions at once, and the artificial cap on block size exacerbates this problem. What happens as a result?

Ordinary people, the ones who are supposedly meant to benefit from this “decentralized” system, get priced out of using it.
Now, imagine someone earning $120 a week. For them, $50 in transaction fees isn’t just impractical—it’s outright absurd.

Think about that: they’re supposed to transfer a portion of their hard-earned money, and BTC slaps them with a fee that could be almost half of their weekly income. That’s not just inefficient; it’s downright predatory. How can this be considered a digital cash system when the very people who need it most are unable to afford the fees?
This is where the distinction between BTC and Bitcoin (the real Bitcoin, as described in the White Paper) becomes important. Bitcoin was meant to be a peer-to-peer electronic cash system—accessible to anyone, with minimal transaction fees, even at scale.

BTC, with its fee structure, is no longer about enabling everyday people to use their money freely; it’s become a speculative asset, primarily serving the interests of a few, leaving the rest behind to deal with exorbitant costs.
Read 4 tweets
Oct 3
COPA’s claim (in response to my skeleton) that I used ChatGPT to generate legal documents is a prime example of a classic logical fallacy: the ad hominem attack.

Instead of addressing the actual merits of my case, they attempt to undermine my credibility by making baseless allegations that are completely irrelevant to the matter at hand.

What’s more, during the court proceedings, COPA had access to all of my files and documents. If there had been any evidence supporting their claim, they would have found it. Yet, despite finding nothing, they continue to make these false accusations.
This is not an argument grounded in facts or logic—it’s a diversion, a way to sidestep the substantive issues by casting aspersions on me personally.

The use of such tactics is a clear indication that they either cannot or will not engage with the real questions before the court. Whether I used AI or not to write the skeleton (which I did not) is completely irrelevant to the authenticity of the evidence or the strength of the arguments I have presented.

But by throwing out these unsubstantiated claims, COPA hopes to distract from the actual evidence, shifting the focus away from what matters: the facts.
This is the kind of thing that may work in the world of public opinion, where emotion and personal attacks often take precedence over logic and reason.

But in a court of law, where decisions are—or at least should be—based on facts and evidence, such tactics should have no place.

COPA’s allegations, lacking any proof, amount to nothing more than a smokescreen. It's a transparent attempt to discredit me without addressing the substance of my case.

And that’s the hallmark of a weak argument—when you can’t refute the facts, you attack the person instead.
Read 7 tweets
Oct 3
Martti Malmi and Adam Back—two figures who have made themselves central to the mythology of Bitcoin—have each admitted, under oath, that they had communications with myself as they gave evidence in the COPA case.

Yet, none of these communications were submitted to the court as legally required.

This glaring breach of the obligation to provide evidence didn’t seem to matter. The court, in its wisdom, deemed these men to be "reliable."

Reliable? How can individuals who openly violate the rules of evidence provision be called trustworthy? How can their failure to disclose these communications, as the law demands, be ignored?
Adam Back, CEO and co-founder of Blockstream, is deeply entwined with COPA (Crypto Open Patent Alliance).

Let’s not pretend for a second that this is a coincidence. Blockstream, an entity profiting from Bitcoin’s hijacking, is a founding member of COPA, and Dr. Back sits at the helm of both.

Are we seriously expected to believe in the "independence" @adam3us from COPA when its founders are the very people tied so deeply to one side of the narrative, all while conveniently failing to disclose key evidence in court?
In English courts, the duty to disclose evidence, including evidence that may be unfavourable, is governed by several legal principles. Central to this is the requirement under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), which obligates parties in litigation to provide all documents relevant to the case.

This includes material that may weaken their own position or strengthen the opposing party's.

The courts operate on the principle of transparency, ensuring that justice is served by making all pertinent evidence available, regardless of whether it aids or harms a party's case.
Read 5 tweets
Oct 3
Yes, patents are for the weak.

And thank God they are.

Patents are for the small inventor, the individual fighting to have their ideas heard in a world dominated by giants.

Patents are the shield that protects the mind of the creator from the crushing weight of the powerful. When Elon Musk says that patents are for the weak, he’s right.

He, with his billions, his vast corporations, his global influence—he doesn’t need patents.

He can afford to crush the opposition with sheer might. But the rest of us, those who stand with nothing but our ideas, need the protection that patents provide.
Patents are not for the powerful; they are for the innovators. They are for the thinkers, the dreamers, the creators—the people who refuse to bow to the establishment and bring something new into the world.

Patents are the fortress around the individual's right to think, to create, and to prosper from their creation.

They ensure that even the weakest among us can stand against the most powerful and say, “This is mine. I built this.”
Innovation isn’t driven by the powerful. It is driven by the mind of the individual—the one who refuses to accept the status quo.

Patents are the tool that allows new ideas to flourish, protecting the creators from being swept aside by those with more resources and influence.

Elon Musk can dismiss patents because he has power.

But those who innovate, who push the world forward, need the protection that allows their ideas to be heard, seen, and realized.
Read 4 tweets
Oct 3
There’s no doubt that misinformation is a growing problem on the internet.

We see it every day—rumors, falsehoods, half-truths spreading like wildfire. But let me be clear: the answer to this problem is not censorship. It’s not about silencing voices or removing information.

The answer lies in something far more powerful—attribution and accountability.
Right now, we see too many people afraid—afraid of the truth.

They fear the responsibility that comes with being held accountable for their words.

But the truth, my friends, must be issued responsibly. And to do that, we need a system of accountability.

Anonymity, as it exists today, is what breeds misinformation. When people hide behind a veil of anonymity, we can’t hold them accountable. We can’t hold their ideas accountable.

We can’t debate openly and honestly when those who spread misinformation can simply erase their trail and disappear.
What we need is a system that is both open and transparent, but one that also respects privacy.

There’s a fundamental difference between anonymity and privacy.

A pseudonym—like those used by the American founding fathers—can still hold weight, can still build credibility over time.

We may not know the name right away, but we can follow the ideas and attribute them to someone who stands by their words.

That’s different from the anonymity we see today, which allows people to hide in the dark, to spread misinformation without consequence.
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(