Passing off occurs deliberately or unintentionally when an individual or group attempts to provide goods or services as if they are something else and the right doesn’t belong to them. It is a form of misrepresentation.

It is a form of deception. To claim that BTC is bitcoin involves many parties, but all those parties, including Blockstream, Core and even bucket shops like Coinbase, are complicit in such an action. Changing bitcoin and the fork into something else is possible under MIT licensing from a new Genesis block, but this does not give any rights to call it bitcoin.

The issue of database rights is a separate component and applies to the deception made by those promoting BTC. All of this is about property rights. It does not matter how many people vote to say something is different. Bitcoin was never a community project. It was my project and my protocol that people could have used to create value. By building upon my protocol, I provided the means to create a digital cash system and a token system that would provide many opportunities for many people, and I did this freely.

When I offer something, the terms I offer them remain the terms that bind the offer.

Passing off as a form of deception and also unfair competition. When I created bitcoin, I specifically noted that the protocol would not change. That precludes introducing SegWit, creating systems like lightning, using changes to the OPCodes that significantly vary how the system works and then passing it off as if that was my original protocol.

The deception is not only by Core. Individuals in companies like Coinbase are essential in making a deception of this type work. The concept that has been produced would not have worked without the promotion and payments by these individuals.

And no, passing off does not require intention

Goodwill and the value of an asset are difficult in many cases to determine. Still, due to the nature of Bitcoin, BTC and the other related copies that forked from bitcoin such as BCH, it becomes very simple to determine.

The entire market value has been skewed. Very simply, determining the entire market value is a difference becomes the range of damages. The distribution of damages between parties is then distributed. In the case of something like Coinbase would likely end up exceeding the value of their entire company on the market.

Just because a lot of people have been involved in deception is completely irrelevant. The BTC deception will lead to a large-scale problem for them.

CSW
Oct 29, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1635515371113200?thread_ts=1635515371.113200&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3230

Remember, there is MORE than the coins, the assets are the rights, the database and the coins

And even the coins are recoverable

The Core guys don't want you to know, but they lied

The passing off and database claims for me are worth about 252 billion USD.

I don’t see a downside.
I will let you know that Bitcoin Cash will not survive. I have no interest in negotiating with Roger. He burnt his bridges.

CSW
Nov 2, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1635846497089900?thread_ts=1635846497.089900&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3288

Carta de los abogados de CSW a:

Bitcoin.org,
Square,
BTC Core,
Blockstream,
Coinbase,
Etoro, and
Payward Ventures (Kraken)

“since 2017, you have been using and encouraging the use of that database without a licence or otherwise without WII’s permission. We therefore put you on notice that WII intends to enforce its rights against you in respect of the Bitcoin Blockchain database.”

https://coingeek.com/craig-wright-lawyers-warn-coinbase-kraken-and-others-over-misuse-of-bitcoin/

Te refieres a esto Chico?
252 mil millones de dólares por el precio estimado por Craig de la base de datos de BitCoin

The database was never MIT.

I never loaded it on SourceForge

You connected to MY nodes directly.

These used IRC to send IP addresses and data concerning the nodes that were available

The money is the property of the bank - you have a note- a loan.

Once money is in an account, the effect is to have you owed a debt. That debt is not the same as it being your money and it is not your money. It is a debt the bank must repay. No more

The strange structure of bitcoin sets a database schema. Where there is a combination of little and big endian values, it becomes simple to assert rights over a database.

It is not accident but design that lead to a seemingly strange transaction structure.

CSW
Nov 16, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1637062062133300?thread_ts=1637062062.133300&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3438

For those interested;
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/3032/contents/made

what defines the database?
part 2, section 6
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/3032/regulation/6/made

also part 3, section 12 (Interpretation)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/3032/regulation/12/made

A little bonus reading - Sui generis database rights
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/sui-generis-database-rights#sui-generis-database-rights-in-the-eu

CSW
Dec 8, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/CA420L9V4/p1638929781490900?thread_ts=1638928982.490000&cid=CA420L9V4

Wright International Investments Ltd owns the Bitcoin protocol and Database.

The core developers have been agents from the time I handed the keys to Gavin with a direction to "steward" the protocol and to ensure that it was fixed, set in stone.

CSW
Mar 26, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1648289625923619?thread_ts=1648289625.923619&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/4223

BSV is an implementation of the Bitcoin protocol.

There can be many implementations, but only one protocol. Right now, there is only the one reference implementation.

BTC is a system that copied the Bitcoin database illegally. The database was NEVER MIT licenced. You needed to connect to my nodes in 2009 directly to obtain a copy. The database was never loaded in SourceForge. The use is and remains limited to use exclusively on the Bitcoin protocol, which excludes BTC.

CSW
Apr 30,. 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1651304462094809?thread_ts=1651304462.094809&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/4365

Information Defense and Integyrs - Jan 2009

Wright International Investments Ltd - Aug 2009

The Database is owned by WII

The application was 03rd Jan 09 for the company

It was setup on 29th

https://abr.business.gov.au/AbnHistory/View?id=90135141347

https://www.trademarkelite.com/australia/trademark/trademark-detail/1284365/INFORMATION-DEFENSE-PTY-LTD-ETERNAL-VIGILANCE-IS-THE-COST-OF-LIBERTY

CSW
Jun 8, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1654669553925369?thread_ts=1654649308.762599&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/4574

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2023/222.html

Aquí tenéis, íntegro, lo que falló el juez. Es corto de leer y muy interesante, además de servir como herramienta contra la mentira de las noticias que están sacando los de DCG.

Posiblemente @Augusto_arbusto pueda explicarlo mejor pero entiendo que CSW pidió permiso a la corte del Reino Unido para enviar reclamos por violación de propiedad intelectual a personas fuera de la jurisdicción británica y el juez al revisar las peticiones de dichos reclamos, todos le parecieron bien salvo uno: un reclamo de subsistencia e infracción de derechos de autor en una supuesta obra literaria denominada Formato de archivo Bitcoin. Y es sobre este punto en lo que resulta este juicio.

"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 (...) The application for permission to serve out came before me to determine on the papers. Having considered all the material, I was satisfied I should grant permission to serve out on the claims asserted in the draft Amended Particulars of Claim with one exception. This concerned the claim of subsistence and infringement of copyright in an alleged literary work referred to as the Bitcoin File Format. I therefore requested the Claimants to file a short skeleton argument and/or further evidence to address this point: 'When and in what form the alleged literary work in the Bitcoin File Format was first recorded, in writing or otherwise.' I was raising the issue of fixation. "

Si bien el juz da la razón a CSW respecto a unos mínimos sobre derechos de autor, es respecto a la creación del Formato de Archivo de Bitcoin donde discrepa en que el requisito de fijación/identificación suficiente se cumplió automáticamente cuando se ejecutó el programa.