The
Crypto
Open
Patent
Alliance
(COPA)
secured
an
initial
victory
on
Thursday
when
the
presiding
judge
in
its
U.K.
trial
against
computer
scientist
Craig
Wright
declared
that
he
is
not
Satoshi
Nakamoto,
the
creator
of
Bitcoin,
but
the
battle
is
not
over.
COPA
wants
court
orders
in
place
to
limit
Wright’s
ability
to
sue
others.
Wright
has
pursued
a
series
of
lawsuits
claiming
rights
to
the
Bitcoin
whitepaper,
the
Bitcoin
technology
and
stashes
of
bitcoins,
as
well
as
alleging
defamation.
The
“judgment
has
truly
eroded
Wright’s
credibility
to
continue
passing
off
as
Satoshi
Nakamoto,”
a
Kraken
spokesperson
told
CoinDesk.
The
Kraken
exchange
is
a
defendant
in
one
of
Wright’s
suits.
COPA
vs.
Wright’s
‘Campaign
of
Litigation’
COPA
wants
more.
The
organization,
which
was
created
to
protect
the
open
source
network
from
threats,
wants
injunctions
that
would
limit
Wright
from
claiming
to
be
Nakamoto
again,
asserting
authorship
of
the
Bitcoin
whitepaper
and
pursuing
more
litigation
against
members
of
the
crypto
community.
The
injunctions
are
likely
to
be
argued
individually.
Also,
COPA
lawyers
said
on
Tuesday
that
they
plan
on
asking
U.K.
prosecutors
if
Wright
perjured
himself
when
trying
to
prove
he
was
the
creator
of
Bitcoin.
“Any
further
relief
will
be
dealt
with
in
my
written
judgment,”
Judge
James
Mellor
said
in
his
closing
statement
on
Thursday.
The
court
declined
to
comment
on
when
the
judge’s
final
ruling
will
emerge.
The
full
written
judgment
will
address
all
the
evidence,
including
allegations
of
fraud
and
46
allegations
of
forgery
of
evidence.
At
this
point,
it
remains
unclear
yet
whether
or
not
Wright
will
be
prevented
from
continuing
to
claim
he
is
Nakamoto,
Louise
Abbott,
partner
at
Keystone
law
firm
said.
Impact
on
existing
cases
COPA’s
win
should
heavily
sway
some
of
his
existing
cases
in
favor
of
the
crypto
community,
Abbott
explained.
Wright’s
loss
is
set
to
weaken
his
claims
in
his
case
against
Kraken
and
Coinbase.
He
alleged
that
those
exchanges
are
not
selling
bitcoin,
but
rather,
his
intellectual
property.
“Wright’s
dramatic
loss
will
significantly
weaken
his
claims
in
the
passing-off
case,
potentially
affecting
his
ability
to
assert
intellectual
property
rights
related
to
Bitcoin,”
Abbott
said.
Another
case
that
will
be
influenced
by
Thursday’s
result
will
be
the
database
rights
case
against
various
entities
including
Coinbase.
“He
alleges
violation
of
his
copyrights
to
the
Bitcoin
whitepaper
and
database
rights
to
the
Bitcoin
blockchain,”
Abbott
said.
“This
week’s
findings
will
dramatically
affect
his
prospects
of
succeeding
in
these
arguments.”
Wright’s
cases
are
international.
One
notable
example
is
a
defamation
case
he
lost
against
Bitcoin
advocate
Magnus
Granath
–
otherwise
known
as
Hodlonaut
–
in
Norway.
Wright
told
CoinDesk
two
years
ago
that
he
planned
to
appeal
the
case.
“In
terms
of
the
future,
we
will
have
to
wait
to
see
the
impact
on
other
cases
across
the
globe
and
whether
there
will
be
an
injunction
against
Wright
preventing
him
from
continuing
with
such
claims,”
Abbott
said.
Kraken
believes
that
it
is
unlikely
that
Wright
will
stop
suing
members
of
the
crypto
community.
“While
we
expect
Wright
will
continue
pursuing
these
claims,
he
has
fooled
no-one
in
the
crypto
community,
and
we
are
confident
these
claims
can
now
be
definitively
disposed
of,”
a
Kraken
spokesperson
said.
Could
Wright
Appeal?
Wright
hasn’t
responded
to
a
CoinDesk
email
asking
if
he
planned
to
appeal
Mellor’s
decision.
“I
will
extend
time
for
filing
any
appellant’s
notice
until
21
days
after
the
form
of
order
hearing,”
which
will
happen
after
the
written
judgement,
Mellor
said
on
Thursday.
When
appealing
a
court’s
decision
there
has
to
be
proper
legal
grounds
for
an
appeal,
according
to
the
HM
Courts
and
Appeals
service.
One
example
of
proper
legal
grounds
would
be
if
“you
can
show
that
the
decision
was
wrong
because
of
a
serious
mistake
or
because
the
procedure
was
not
followed
properly.”
If
the
court
grants
an
appeal,
the
judge
sets
out
the
issues
that
can
be
raised,
though
those
constraints
can
also
be
appealed.
“If
the
judge
has
considered
your
permission
to
appeal
on
paper
and
refused,
and
believes
your
application
cannot
in
any
way
be
justified,
they
may
order
that
you
cannot
ask
their
decision
to
be
reconsidered
at
an
oral
hearing,”
according
to
the
procedures
outlined
on
the
U.K.
government
website.
