The ongoing legal drama between the Cryptocurrency Open Patent Alliance and Craig Wright in London has left onlookers astonished. Each revelation seems to cast ripples of uncertainty and produce more questions than answers, further muddying the waters.
At the heart of the case is Wright’s contentious claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the mysterious creator of bitcoin. This claim has been met with skepticism and scrutiny, leading to legal battles aiming to find the truth.
The trial is a showcase of detailed technical evidence, punctuated by moments of drama. In one instance, Wright exclaimed in court, “But I AM Satoshi!” This declaration occurred during cross-examination by Jonathan Hough, representing COPA. The evidence presented challenges his claim. Wright’s statement is a key part of his argument for ownership over the intellectual property and rights associated with the creation of bitcoin and its foundational whitepaper.
Adding a layer of complexity to the situation was an incident involving the live stream of the proceedings. The court nearly had to discontinue the live stream after a photo of Hodlonaut, a bitcoiner who won a defamation case against Wright in Norway, was taken from the live stream and posted online. The photos were particularly sinister considering Coingeek reported in April 2019 that Wright had put a $5,000 bounty for whoever finds Hodlonaut’s true identity.
This led to concern from the court, and Judge Mellor made it clear that it violated the terms of the stream and that the court could revoke the service if it continued.
Hodlonaut, who traveled to London from Norway specifically to observe the proceedings, commented on the trial’s developments. He said, ‘It has been bizarre to watch Craig Wright on the stand so far. Discrediting his own expert witness and making up ever more incredible stories to try to explain away the huge amount of forgeries he has filed as evidence.’
Wright’s financial backing has also come under scrutiny. He denied being bankrolled by billionaire Calvin Ayre for his litigation efforts, a claim contradicting statements made in the Wright vs. McCormack case, where Wright acknowledged Ayre’s financial support. In the current trial, Wright argues that what he received from Ayre was not funding but a loan, adding more confusion to the case.
In yet another stunning twist during trial, Wright admitted to the court that some of the documents he presented supporting his claim as Satoshi Nakamoto were indeed forged, a revelation that once again sent a wave of disbelief through the courtroom. This admission came after COPA’s meticulous presentation of evidence highlighting time discrepancies in the documents, such as fonts that were not available when the documents were supposedly created.
Wright attributed the forgeries to various external factors, including errors by former solicitors, sabotage by disgruntled employees, hacking by malicious actors, and even unspecified anomalies within the IT environment that could have altered documents autonomously. These defenses paint a picture of Wright as a victim of circumstances beyond his control and introduce a complex web of excuses that aim to dilute his responsibility and cause confusion.
Perhaps one of the most surprising moments in the trial so far, and there have been many, was when Wright waived privilege. Wright’s lawyers, understanding the potential ramifications, reacted swiftly. This prompted his lawyer to emphasize the need for control and protection for what he described as a “vulnerable witness.”
As the trial progressed, it continued to analyze many digital documents and their authentication, the reliability of electronic evidence, and the relationships and agreements underpinning the early days of bitcoin’s development.
The COPA v. Wright case is more than a legal battle over copyright claims and the identity of bitcoin’s creator. The result of this case could redefine the future of governance, intellectual property rights, and the legacy of bitcoin itself.
The trial continues….
Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn.