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

10 - As part of the preparation for the hearing, the Claimants' solicitors asked for an indication of what I would find helpful to cover. My response sent to them was as follows:

'The alleged literary copyright work is said to be the Bitcoin File Format, as explained in Schedule 2.  Paragraph 57 of the Particulars of Claim seems to indicate that the Bitcoin File Format was first recorded in the early blocks of the Blockchain. 

However, as the Judge understands the position, each block simply comprises a long list of hex characters.  The 'structure' derives from what the software is instructed (in its code) to read and process when it reads a block.  So the software reads the first 80 bytes and processes those as constituting the header.  Those 80 bytes can then be 'read' by reference to the structure set out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 2, so the first 4 bytes are processed as constituting the nVersion field and so on.  But again, the structure of the block header derives from what the software is instructed to read and process.  It is not indicated in the block itself. 

Hence the questions:
1) Is the above understanding broadly correct?  If erroneous, please explain in what respects.
2) Where, in one of the early blocks, is it possible to discern the structure which is now claimed to be the copyright work;
3) In what sense is the structure (as discernible in one of the early blocks) reproduced in later blocks?'

11 - With the benefit of hindsight, my last two questions are capable of creating something of a red herring, because with the benefit of an understanding of the software and what it reads and writes and possibly by studying many blocks, it is possible to discern the structure of a block. In the course of the hearing, Mr Hicks offered to file further evidence comprising extracts from various books on Bitcoin which show that several people have worked out the structure of a block. I indicated that was not necessary, since I entirely accept that people have been able to work out the structure of a block.

Prior to the hearing I received a helpful Skeleton Argument from Mr Hicks along with a very useful bundle of authorities.

I make clear that for the purpose of determining whether I should grant permission to serve out, I have proceeded on the assumption that everything said by Dr Wright is true (including his claim to be the creator of the Bitcoin System) and, furthermore, that all the allegations of fact contained in the draft Amended Particulars of Claim are true. All allegations which reach that stage will be tested at trial.

The underlying claim

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

The underlying claim

4- In this action, Dr Wright claims to be the owner of certain database rights which he says subsist in three databases, namely (i) the Bitcoin Blockchain, (ii) the Bitcoin Blockchain as it stood on 1 August 2017 at 14.11 – up to and including block 478,558 and (iii) another part of the Bitcoin Blockchain made in a particular period (the details of which do not matter for present purposes). Dr Wright also says he (or one of the Claimants) owns the copyright which subsist in (a) the White Paper and (b) what is called in the Particulars of Claim 'the Bitcoin File File Format'.

5- Dr Wright brings this claim because he objects to two 'Airdrops', each of which effected what he terms 'significant' changes to his Bitcoin System and which deviated from the principles and protocols he had created and specified. The first Airdrop occurred on 1 August 2017 and resulted in what Dr Wright calls the BTC Network. Nodes on the Bitcoin Network continued to operate the existing Bitcoin System but the Airdrop effectively created a branch in the chain, so that from block 478,558, the Bitcoin Blockchain continued adding blocks mined by its nodes thereby extending the Bitcoin Blockchain, with the BTC Blockchain running in parallel. The ticker 'BTC' has been adopted for the digital cash system operated by the BTC Network.

6 - The second Airdrop occurred on 15 November 2018 and created another new peer-to-peer network (the 'current BCH Network'), again which Dr Wright says implemented significant changes to his Bitcoin System. So from that date another parallel blockchain emerged, this called the BCH Blockchain. The ticker BCH is used for the digital cash system operated by the BCH Network.

7 - Although Dr Wright says he did not coin the ticker BSV (Bitcoin Satoshi Vision), it is now used to designate the original Bitcoin digital cash system.

8 - Dr Wright's case is that the database rights and copyrights which he/the Claimants own provide a mechanism by which he can prevent the further operation of the BTC Blockchain and the BCH Blockchain without his consent.

9 - Both the BTC Blockchain and the BCH Blockchain contain the Bitcoin Blockchain up to and including block 478,558. Dr Wright's claim is that the operation of the BTC Blockchain and the BCH Blockchain result in the extraction and/or re-utilisation of all or substantial parts of the Databases in which he owns database right

0- The White Paper is included in block 230,009 of the Bitcoin Blockchain. There is no difficulty in literary copyright subsisting in the White Paper. The consequence is that use of the BTC Blockchain and the BCH Blockchain entails reproduction of block 230,009 and reproduction of the entire White Paper, all done, so Dr Wright alleges, without the consent of him as the copyright owner.

1 - 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.

The Bitcoin File Format
2

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

The Bitcoin File Format

2- There is no doubt as to what the Bitcoin File Format is. It is described in Schedule 2 to the Particulars of Claim. The overall structure of a block comprises three parts:
1) a block header of 80 bytes; (2) the vtx number, of 1-9 bytes, which records the number of transactions in a variable VarInt; and
(3) the transactions recorded in the block, of variable size.

3 - The block header is always 80 bytes but Schedule 2 explains that it comprises various data fields as follows:

i) nVersion, 4 bytes in length comprising a 32 bit unsigned integer stored in little endian and representing the version of the block format;

ii) hashPrevBlock, 32 bytes in length, being a double hash of the previous block header stored in little endian – essentially the link to the previous block in the chain;

iii) hashMerkleRoot, again 32 bytes in length, comprising a double hash of the root of the Merkle tree of transactions stored in little endian;

iv) nTime, a 4 byte field, representing the time in seconds since 1 Jan 1970, in a 32 but unsigned integer in little endian;

v) nBits, a 4 byte field recording a measure of the difficulty target in compact format;

vi) nNonce, a 4 byte field. Nonce is a portmanteau of 'number used only once'. The Nonce is used in the proof of work algorithm and is effectively the number that blockchain miners are solving for.

4 - Schedule 2 goes on to describe the Transactions part of the block. There are two types: normal and 'coinbase' transactions. Further paragraphs in Schedule 2 explain the general structure of a transaction, the structure of an input and an output in a normal transaction (which differ) and the structure of the input in a coinbase transaction (the output having the same structure), in a similar manner to the explanation of the additional structure in the header, which I summarised above. It is not necessary for me to set out these structures.

Copyright

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

Copyright

5- The starting point is section 3 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended) which provides as follows (and has done at all material times):
'3 Literary, dramatic and musical works
(1) In this Part—
"literary work" means any work, other than a dramatic or musical work, which is written, spoken or sung, and accordingly includes—
(a) a table or compilation, and
(b) a computer program;
….
(2) Copyright does not subsist in a literary, …. work unless and until it is recorded, in writing or otherwise; and references in this Part to the time at which such a work is made are to the time at which it is so recorded.
(3) It is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (2) whether the work is recorded by or with the permission of the author; and where it is not recorded by the author, nothing in that subsection affects the question whether copyright subsists in the record as distinct from the work recorded.

6 - Section 3(2) embodies the important concept of fixation. The principle of fixation is of general application and is referred to in both the Berne Convention and in the Rome Convention. However, as is clearly explained in the 18th Edition of Copinger and Skone James on Copyright at 3-36 and 3-161, it is necessary to address the 'not very different' EU requirement of sufficient identifiability, as specified by the CJEU in Case C-310/17 Levola Hengelo BV v Smilde Foods BV

EU:C:2018:899. In that case (which was concerned with a copyright alleged to subsist in the taste of a spreadable dip containing cream cheese and fresh herbs), the CJEU ruled that for subject matter to be classified as a 'work' within the meaning of the InfoSoc Directive, two cumulative conditions must be satisfied. First, that the subject matter is original in the sense that it is the author's own intellectual creation and second, only something which is the expression of the author's own intellectual creation may be classified as a 'work'. In [40]-[41], the CJEU explained:

'40 Accordingly, for there to be a 'work' as referred to in Directive 2001/29, the subject matter protected by copyright must be expressed in a manner which makes it identifiable with sufficient precision and objectivity, even though that expression is not necessarily in permanent form.

41 That is because, first, the authorities responsible for ensuring that the exclusive rights inherent in copyright are protected must be able to identify, clearly and precisely, the subject matter so protected. The same is true for individuals, in particular economic operators, who must be able to identify, clearly and precisely, what is the subject matter of protection which third parties, especially competitors, enjoy. Secondly, the need to ensure that there is no element of subjectivity –– given that it is detrimental to legal certainty –– in the process of identifying the protected subject matter means that the latter must be capable of being expressed in a precise and objective manner.'

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

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 - On the facts here, any difference between fixation and sufficient identifiability (and I am unable to identify any) seems to me to have no bearing whatsoever on my decision. However, as will be seen below, I have reminded myself of certain points which emerge from SAS No.3 at [29], namely: (i) it may be important to distinguish between the putative work on the one hand and any particular fixation of the work on the other hand; (ii) the fixation must not be confused with the work and (iii) the fact that one can identify a fixation is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the subsistence of copyright.

8 - There is no doubt that a wide variety of subject matter can qualify as a literary work. It has long been recognised that the term 'literary work' includes computer software but also that, in order to constitute a 'literary work' the work need not be comprehensible by a human. Counsel also reminded me of the point that the categories of 'work' in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 may not be compatible with EU law, being capable of being too restrictive in certain cases. I do not consider that point has any application here. Certainly, my conclusion in this judgment does not depend on categorisation.

9 - In line with the indication above, for the purposes of this application I assume that Dr Wright created the Bitcoin File Format and it was the product of his own intellectual creation. As already stated, there is no doubt about the structure of a Bitcoin Block,

Caselaw

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

Application of UK database rights to forking and blockchain technology
Dr. Craig Wright
Oct 23, 2023
https://coingeek.com/application-of-uk-database-rights-to-forking-and-blockchain-technology/

"This analysis explores the application of U.K. database rights in the context of ‘forking’ and blockchain technologies. It examines the legal framework surrounding database rights under U.K. law, analyzes the challenges posed by forking in the context of database rights, and discusses the implications of blockchain technology on the protection of databases...."

There is no such thing as "hard forks" or "soft forks". What there is, is copying the database and then sticking on a different name.

There are laws for things like that.

The Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997 -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/3032/contents


Meaning of “database”
6. After section 3 insert—

“Databases
3A.—(1) In this Part “database” means a collection of independent works, data or other materials which—

(a)are arranged in a systematic or methodical way, and
(b)are individually accessible by electronic or other means.
(2) For the purposes of this Part a literary work consisting of a database is original if, and only if, by reason of the selection or arrangement of the contents of the database the database constitutes the author’s own intellectual creation.”.

#Bitcoin is a database.
https://x.com/JoelDalais/status/1668990545505517571?s=20

-https://twitter.com/_electronicCash/status/1729093453164818610

" Bitcoin is developed under an open-source model and released under the MIT License (Wright, 2008; MIT, n.d.). As an open-source project, the Bitcoin source code is publicly accessible, allowing users to examine, modify, and distribute it within the terms of the MIT License. Yet, it is important to emphasize that being open source does not mean that Bitcoin is in the public domain. The public domain refers to works that are not protected by intellectual property rights, but Bitcoin’s open-source status does not negate its intellectual property protections (Laurent, 2004). While the Bitcoin source code is freely available, it remains subject to copyright protection (Stokes, 2019). It is crucial to understand that copyright and open-source licensing coexist, allowing individuals to exercise their rights and obligations under the MIT License while preserving the intellectual property rights associated with Bitcoin (Lindberg, 2008). What is more, it is worth noting that other forms of intellectual property, such as database rights, operate independently from copyright and may have their own legal implications (Coleman, 2009)...."

Annotated Bibliography: Open Source and Development
By Craig Wright
06 Dec 2023 | Bitcoin & Blockchain Tech

https://craigwright.net/blog/bitcoin-blockchain-tech/annotated-bibliography-open-source-and-development/?s=09

Built on the Foundation of Different Legal Principles

Understanding the distinction between open source and the public domain is essential when discussing Bitcoin and its associated intellectual property rights. Bitcoin’s open-source nature, as permitted by the MIT License, fosters collaboration, innovation, and transparency within the Bitcoin community.

Yet, it is crucial to recognize that the concept of open source does not equate to the public domain. The public domain encompasses works that are not subject to intellectual property rights, while Bitcoin’s open-source status operates within the framework of copyright protection. Hence the copyright is very clearly stated on the white paper.

This differentiation has legal implications, as the open-source licensing of Bitcoin allows users to access, modify, and distribute the source code but does not relinquish the intellectual property rights associated with Bitcoin and its development. It is important to navigate such legal complexities, considering that other forms of intellectual property, including database rights, operate independently from copyright and may have their own legal considerations.

Recognizing the nuances between open source, copyright, and other intellectual property rights is crucial for developers, users, businesses, and the broader Bitcoin community to ensure compliance, foster innovation, build on a solid foundation and respect the intellectual property protections embedded in the Bitcoin ecosystem.
4:28 PM · Dec 12, 2023
·https://x.com/satoshi/status/1734596191772361191?s=20

One trusted ledger, trusted data ownership and low fees: BSV has it all, says Owen Vaughan 19 APRIL 2023 Jon Southurst https://coingeek.com/one-trusted-ledger-trusted-data-ownership-and-low-fees-bsv-has-it-all-says-owen-vaughan/

reclamaciones de derechos de bases de datos, ( Reclamación No. IL-2022-000069), una oferta no negociable para resolver cada uno de estos casos, que se reproduce en su totalidad a continuación.

En una clara demostración de la sinceridad de mi oferta, acepto renunciar a mis derechos de base de datos y derechos de autor relacionados con las bases de datos BTC, BCH y ABC, y a ofrecer una licencia irrevocable a perpetuidad a mis partes opuestas que colectivamente controlan, operan y/o poseen dichas bases de datos, en pos de fomentar la comercialización abierta de tecnologías en un mercado competitivo y justo, donde los derechos de propiedad intelectual sean respetados y explotados. Mi intención es que esta oferta les permita competir de forma justa, en paralelo con BSV.


https://foro.bsvespanol.org/t/el-dr-craig-wright-presenta-una-oferta-de-acuerdo-a-los-miembros-de-la-copa-y-a-todas-las-partes-en-el-proximo-litigio-de-propiedad-intelectual/357

@WhaleChart
Strange that you do not publish the possible effects of the Database and copyright claim I just won the right to run.

After all.

The results of this (if BTC Core Don't agree on a licence before the case) is a global injunction which will make mining, exchanging or having a BTC business a crime.

https://x.com/Dr_CSWright/status/1623573369655291906?s=20

And, this will be enforced in the UK, USA, EU and Cn.

Seems strange to downplay this?

watch and learn

They fail to understand, China and USA allow UK judgments to be enforced.

CSW
Feb 9, 2023
https://x.com/Dr_CSWright/status/1623573369655291906?s=20

Respected UK Lawyer Tackles the Craig Wright Satoshi Trial Controversy and Patents
1h
Gavin Mehl
18 feb 2024

Join patent expert David Pearce as he sits down with Gavin Mehl to discuss hot topics like nChain's controversial patents, Craig Wright's Satoshi claims, and the landmark COPA vs Wright lawsuit.

As a UK attorney, David lends his insights into the British justice system's influence on this Bitcoin trial of the century overseas. Get his take on courtroom antics and candid dinner conversation with presiding Judge Mellor before the case started.

Min 32
https://youtube.com/watch?v=RoHJiPNmGDA&si=pctEYM_CcjYkc21s