- Dr. Craig Wright, claiming to be Bitcoin’s creator, battles for copyright and database rights in the High Court, focusing on the contentious Bitcoin file format.
- Court of Appeal overturns initial skepticism, paving the way for potential copyright establishment in Bitcoin file format.
- The dispute hinges on whether explicit definition is needed for Bitcoin file format copyright, impacting English copyright law.
In a groundbreaking legal showdown, Dr. Craig Wright, self-proclaimed Satoshi Nakamoto, the enigmatic architect behind Bitcoin, is entangled in multiple cases in the High Court of England and Wales. Wright asserts his ownership of copyright and database rights over the Bitcoin system, raising a contentious debate surrounding the Bitcoin file format.
According to a recent report, Dr. Wright sought permission to serve proceedings beyond jurisdiction, emphasizing the potential establishment of copyright in the Bitcoin file format at trial rather than its existence as a prerequisite. Initially met with skepticism, the decision was ultimately reversed on appeal, ushering in a pivotal moment in the legal battle.
The core of the dispute revolves around the structure of the Bitcoin file format, which encompasses a sequence of digital blocks documenting specific Bitcoin transactions. Wright contends that copyright protection extends to the format’s arrangement.
The initial judgment left no ambiguity regarding the structure of the Bitcoin file format. The critical divergence lay in the absence of a tangible record, definition, or template delineating the format.
While Dr. Wright contended that the format crystallized during the operation of the Bitcoin system, resulting in identifiable files, the judge held that these files merely mirrored the format rather than defining it. Consequently, no “fixation” of the Bitcoin file format occurred, rendering it ineligible for copyright protection.
The dissenting opinion of the Court of Appeal centered on whether an explicit definition of the Bitcoin file format was necessary for copyright subsistence. The answer was a resounding no.
Crucially, the requirement for fixation could be met through the operation of the Bitcoin system itself, encompassing the reading and writing of files in the Bitcoin file format. Dr. Wright’s evidence further bolstered this notion, demonstrating a third-party ability to discern the format from the Bitcoin system’s digital files.
The pivotal judgments clarify the “fixation” prerequisite within English copyright law. However, it’s crucial to note that the Court of Appeal’s decision merely grants Dr. Wright a potential path to victory at trial regarding copyright in the Bitcoin file format. Whether the format passes the originality test looms large, especially given its potential technical differentiations from other file formats. Trial conclusions may offer essential insights into copyright subsistence within databases and computer programs.
