“We’ve seen a cascading effect of the ruling in a number of other litigations globally,” Grewal says. “To people outside of cryptocurrencies, (all of this) may seem cartoonish. But with Wright’s claims falling by the wayside, the community can breathe. “We think it’s a real victory.”
The ruling has also had implications for Bitcoin Satoshi Vision, or BSV, a separate cryptocurrency network created by Wright in 2018. The idea was for BSV to stick “as closely as possible to the original Satoshi design,” as the website says. describes it. In the days following the judge’s ruling that Wright is not Satoshi, the BSV token price fell 40 percent.
The BSV Association did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
By declaring that Wright is not Satoshi, the ruling will prevent him from bringing further lawsuits in the UK. It was drawn up, Mellor writes, to ensure that Wright had “no possible basis on which to threaten (developers) copyright or database rights arising from work done by Satoshi Nakamoto.” The judge will also decide at a later hearing whether he will impose any specific injunctions on Wright.
However, the geographical scope of the ruling is limited, leaving an opportunity for Wright to pursue his claim to intellectual property rights over Bitcoin in other legal jurisdictions.
General copyright principles are “harmonized” under an agreement adopted by the overwhelming majority of countries, says James Marsden, senior associate at law firm Dentons, meaning the COPA ruling is likely be persuasive to other courts asked to address Wright’s claim. to own intellectual property rights over Bitcoin. However, “copyright is territorial,” he says. “Each country’s courts will look at a copyright case separately.”
In his trial testimony, Wright also implied that he could exercise his trove of patents related to blockchain technology to file more lawsuits against Bitcoin developers. A ruling that Wright is not the creator of Bitcoin would not prevent him from doing so. “It is very difficult for any court to make a ruling that prevents a compromised party from repeating false claims,” Grewal says.
Granath, the defendant in the Norwegian defamation case brought by Wright, imagines that Wright’s continuation of his claim to be Satoshi will depend on the availability of funds.
Wright’s source of funding was left in doubt at trial. COPA alleges that online gambling mogul Calvin Ayre has funded Wright’s various litigations. At trial, Wright denied that Ayre had financed their demands. Ayre did not respond to a request for comment.
In March, Mellor placed a freezing order on $7.6 million of Wright’s assets, to prevent him from taking steps to “evade the costs and consequences of his loss at trial.” COPA has “a very powerful claim to be awarded a very substantial sum in costs,” the judge wrote.
“I think this is due to current funding, not Wright’s desire to continue claiming to be Satoshi,” Granath says. “I believe the UK ruling renders any further legal action based on Wright’s claims futile, meaning that the will and rationality to fund it no longer exists.”
For its part, COPA hopes that the integrity of the judge’s findings against Wright (and the resulting damage to his credibility) will deter him from taking further legal action, even if the option remains available to him.
“This was an extraordinary procedure. I couldn’t have sent a clearer message to Dr. Wright and anyone paying attention,” Grewal says. “I’m not too worried about Dr. Craig Wright.”
