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/
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/
CoinGeek
Craig Wright lawyers warn Coinbase, Kraken and others over misuse of Bitcoin
Dr. Craig Wright has sent legal notices to a number of digital asset entities and groups over their use of the Bitcoin name, warning of formal legal action if they do not take steps to address the situation.
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
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
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Nov 16, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1637062062133300?thread_ts=1637062062.133300&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3438
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
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/3032/contents/made
www.legislation.gov.uk
The Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997
These Regulations implement the provisions of Council Directive No. 96/9/EC of 11 March 1996 (O.J. No. L77, 27.3.96, page 20) on the legal protection of databases (“the Directive”). The Regulations come into force on 1st January 1998.
what defines the database?
part 2, section 6
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/3032/regulation/6/made
part 2, section 6
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/3032/regulation/6/made
www.legislation.gov.uk
The Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997
These Regulations implement the provisions of Council Directive No. 96/9/EC of 11 March 1996 (O.J. No. L77, 27.3.96, page 20) on the legal protection of databases (“the Directive”). The Regulations come into force on 1st January 1998.
also part 3, section 12 (Interpretation)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/3032/regulation/12/made
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/3032/regulation/12/made
www.legislation.gov.uk
The Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997
These Regulations implement the provisions of Council Directive No. 96/9/EC of 11 March 1996 (O.J. No. L77, 27.3.96, page 20) on the legal protection of databases (“the Directive”). The Regulations come into force on 1st January 1998.
A little bonus reading - Sui generis database rights
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/sui-generis-database-rights#sui-generis-database-rights-in-the-eu
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/sui-generis-database-rights#sui-generis-database-rights-in-the-eu
GOV.UK
Sui generis database rights
Protection in the EU for databases produced in the UK.
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
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
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
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Apr 30,. 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1651304462094809?thread_ts=1651304462.094809&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/4365
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
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
Forwarded from CSW - Slack Channel (Ramon Quesada.)
Forwarded from CSW - Slack Channel (Ramon Quesada.)
Forwarded from CSW - Slack Channel (Ramon Quesada.)
Forwarded from Enrique ❌
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.
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.
Forwarded from Enrique ❌
"I WAS AND AM SATISFIED THAT THE CLAIMS IN DATABASE RIGHT AND OF INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT IN THE WHITE PAPER RAISE SERIOUS ISSUES TO BE TRIED AND THEREFORE SERVICE OUT OF THE JURISDICTION OF THOSE CLAIMS SHOULD BE PERMITTED. THE ISSUE ADDRESSED IN THIS JUDGMENT IS WHETHER THERE IS A SERIOUS ISSUE TO BE TRIED REGARDING THE ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING THE BITCOIN FILE FORMAT."
"Where I part company with the Claimants is with the final submission: that the requirement for fixation/sufficient identifiability was met automatically when the program was run. Counsel referred to Dr Wright's second witness statement (see [4] and [7], as quoted above) and his statement that when the software runs and the hashing problem is solved, a block is created in the Bitcoin File Format – a statement which I entirely accept. Counsel then submitted: 'this is sufficient to meet the fixation/sufficient identifiability requirements.' (...) For a number of related reasons, and on the facts here, I consider this submission is plainly incorrect. In my judgment, the Claimants have not established there is any serious issue to be tried as to subsistence of the alleged literary copyright in the Bitcoin File Format, for a number of interrelated reasons. (...) First, whilst issues in copyright can become complex, the simple and basic steps involved in any claim for infringement of literary copyright include (a) identify the alleged copyright work and (b) compare the work with the alleged infringement. (...) It remains the case that no relevant 'work' has been identified containing content which defines the structure of the Bitcoin File Format. Of course, Schedule 2 to the Particulars of Claim comprises content defining the structure of the Bitcoin File Format, but that is not a relevant 'work'. Schedule 2 was created for the purposes of this claim and cannot form part of the causative chain between what Dr Wright devised, an alleged copyright 'work' and the alleged infringements which were being created as from 1st August 2017."
Finalmente el juez permite que CSW mande los reclamos pertinentes a todos los que están fuera de la jurisdicción británica con la condición de que modifique la cuestión respecto al Formato de Archivo de Bitcoin, no así en el resto de partes de la base de datos.
"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."
No obstante, CSW puede dirigirse al Tribunal de Apelaciones y ver qué pasa, que seguro hará.
"Where I part company with the Claimants is with the final submission: that the requirement for fixation/sufficient identifiability was met automatically when the program was run. Counsel referred to Dr Wright's second witness statement (see [4] and [7], as quoted above) and his statement that when the software runs and the hashing problem is solved, a block is created in the Bitcoin File Format – a statement which I entirely accept. Counsel then submitted: 'this is sufficient to meet the fixation/sufficient identifiability requirements.' (...) For a number of related reasons, and on the facts here, I consider this submission is plainly incorrect. In my judgment, the Claimants have not established there is any serious issue to be tried as to subsistence of the alleged literary copyright in the Bitcoin File Format, for a number of interrelated reasons. (...) First, whilst issues in copyright can become complex, the simple and basic steps involved in any claim for infringement of literary copyright include (a) identify the alleged copyright work and (b) compare the work with the alleged infringement. (...) It remains the case that no relevant 'work' has been identified containing content which defines the structure of the Bitcoin File Format. Of course, Schedule 2 to the Particulars of Claim comprises content defining the structure of the Bitcoin File Format, but that is not a relevant 'work'. Schedule 2 was created for the purposes of this claim and cannot form part of the causative chain between what Dr Wright devised, an alleged copyright 'work' and the alleged infringements which were being created as from 1st August 2017."
Finalmente el juez permite que CSW mande los reclamos pertinentes a todos los que están fuera de la jurisdicción británica con la condición de que modifique la cuestión respecto al Formato de Archivo de Bitcoin, no así en el resto de partes de la base de datos.
"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."
No obstante, CSW puede dirigirse al Tribunal de Apelaciones y ver qué pasa, que seguro hará.