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

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