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.

"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.

The Second Witness Statement of Dr Wright was filed to address this point, and he did so in the following paragraphs:

'4. I devised and created the Bitcoin File Format in the course of writing the code for the Bitcoin System. When the software runs and the hashing problem is solved, the software creates blocks in the Bitcoin File Format which are added to the Bitcoin Blockchain file.

5. The first block in the Bitcoin Blockchain is a special block known as the "Genesis Block". I ran the Bitcoin Software on 3 January 2009 (GMT) and created the Genesis Block on that day. It includes the words "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks". (These words are not part of the file format but are simply some of the contents of the Genesis Block). The "Genesis Block" is an anchor value which is unique to Bitcoin.

6. There were issues with the software which took me some days to correct. The second block (now known as Block #1) which is the first "mined" block in the Blockchain was not created until I ran the software on 9 January 2009 (GMT).

7. Therefore, the Bitcoin File Format in the form which is on the Bitcoin Blockchain was first recorded on 3 January 2009 (GMT) when the software was run as I have described above. The recording was in electronic form on the Bitcoin Blockchain.'

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD)

Rolls Building, Fetter Lane
London, EC4A 1NL
7th February 2023

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

7 - In [8] Dr Wright describes how, over 2007 to 2009, there were earlier pre-release versions of the software and file format created in the course of his development – entirely to be expected. He concludes [8] with this:

'When these earlier pre-release versions were run as with the version released in January 2009, they would write a block to file. This would have made a record in electronic form of the Bitcoin File Format in the form it stood at the time.'

8- All this evidence says is that blocks were written to file in the Bitcoin File Format, i.e. the data in a block was stored according to the structure explained in Schedule 2 to the Particulars of Claim (see further below). It does not address the issue of fixation: where was this structure fixed in a material form.

9- On the basis of those materials, I formed the view that there was no serious issue to be tried. I asked my clerk to communicate a message to this effect to the Claimant's solicitors, indicating that if the Claimants wished to address this point further, a short oral hearing would be appointed. This resulted in the hearing last Friday.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD)

Rolls Building, Fetter Lane
London, EC4A 1NL
7th February 2023

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