CRYPTO OPEN PATENT ALLIANCE V CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT [2024]
Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) brought proceedings against Dr Craig Steven Wright, seeking a declaration that he was not Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonym for the developer of Bitcoin in 2009 and author of the Bitcoin White Paper in 2008.
COPA is a non-profit organisation that aims to encourage innovation by preventing the patenting of cryptocurrency.
Wright claims to have created Bitcoin and is involved in other related proceedings. He has claimed copyright over Bitcoin (BTC Core Claim), passing-off claims (Kraken and Coinbase), and defamation (Wright v McCormack [2023]). As such, the outcome of this case was highly anticipated.
COPA’s arguments
COPA, represented by Bird and Bird LLP, sought a declaration that Dr Wright was not Satoshi Nakamoto.
It was argued that “there is strong evidence that Dr Wright has fabricated his account of the discovery of the New Drives” and that it has been “manipulated and subject to backdating”. COPA also brought in an expert to prove that much of Dr Wright’s evidence was forged.
Notwithstanding, they argued that if Dr Wright had created Bitcoin, he should have been able to present some insight or knowledge from the very early materials that no one but the creator of Bitcoin would know.
Above all, it was argued that the person who is Satoshi Nakamoto would not have forged anything, nor would they have resorted to litigation against the Developers given their non-confrontational persona.
Defences
On the contrary, Dr Wright, represented by Shoosmiths, submitted several pieces of evidence that “proved” he was the original creator. This was a contentious matter in this case’s pre-trial, given that specific evidence came to light after the court’s required period.
The evidence submitted involved documents and software, witness statements from business associates and family, and the evidence from the ‘proof’ sessions in 2016, allegedly proving he was the creator.
It should also be noted that Travers Smith dropped Dr Wright during this litigation process, perhaps indicating Dr Wright’s dishonesty.
The High Court Ruling
On 20th May 2024, the High Court made the following declarations:
- Dr Wright is not the person who created the Bitcoin system;
- Dr Wright is not the author of the initial versions of the Bitcoin Software;
- Dr Wright is not the owner of the copyright in the Bitcoin White Paper;
- Dr Wright did not operate under Satoshi Nakamoto’s pseudonym between 2008 and 2011.
Mellor J deferred the issues of injunctive relief to the Form of Order hearing. Mellor J arrived at this decision after determining that the evidence submitted by Dr Wright was forged.
This judgment reflects England and Wales’s judicial attitude towards honesty and integrity. Mellor J did not tolerate the “serious abuse of this Court’s process,” stating that Dr Wright is “not nearly as clever as he thinks he is.”
Mellor J took a holistic approach in considering a very large number of pieces of evidence. He also based his decision on Dr Wright’s “significant errors,” which suggested he was lying. Moreover, he said that “he took his lies and forgery to ever greater levels.”
As such, the individual known as Satoshi Nakamoto remains unknown.
Broader implications
The judgment leaves limited room for appeal, and Dr Wright may now be subject to perjury proceedings. Furthermore, the other litigation Dr Wright is involved with could fall through.
Ultimately, this case showcases the importance of honesty in the UK courts and could set a precedent for future intellectual property disputes in cryptocurrency. Given this area’s high technicality, future courts may adopt this holistic yet granular approach in determining future outcomes.
Law firm involvement
Given the involvement with Bitcoin, a trillion-dollar company, law firms are instrumental in the legal proceedings. Throughout the process, firms would have had to consider the jurisdiction, given the different stances on intellectual property and technology in the EU, US and UK.
Given the highly technical nature of law, lawyers would have to consider expert analysis, evidence analysis, document scrutinization, and appeal preparation.
-
By Tia Williams-Brown
SRA’s EXPANDING ROLE MAY LEAD TO HIGHER COSTS FOR SOLICITORS
Legal implications for solicitors and firms
Fee Increases on the Horizon:
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) recently received approval to raise contributions to the compensation fund. It has now hinted at possible fee increases for solicitors and firms.
Though no final decisions have been made, these indications suggest solicitors may face increased financial obligations soon.
Bulk claims litigation adding pressure:
The SRA is coping with challenges resulting from bulk claims against collapsed law firms, which have left thousands of claims unresolved.
Some clients are facing demands to pay defence costs, which is straining the SRA’s resources.
Consumer protection review:
A review is planned for this autumn to consider critical questions about the compensation fund—what it should cover, its purpose, and who should contribute to it.
The SRA will reassess the current practice of firms of all sizes paying a flat fee, which could mean changes ahead.
Preventive measures for compliance
Managing resources:
To address these resource-intensive issues, the SRA plans to improve efficiency, reprioritise, and consider using reserves to supplement this year’s available funds.
These steps will likely have implications for future budgets and related fees.
Using data to manage risk:
Despite facing other challenges, the SRA wants to focus on using data to identify and manage risk more effectively.
This approach is about anticipating and addressing problems before they impact legal service users.
Transparency and consumer engagement
Differing approaches to transparency:
The SRA worries that requiring firms to publish broad cost estimates in areas like family law may discourage clients from seeking legal help if they assume they will be charged the maximum rate.
Invitation to comparison websites:
In response to criticism for being slow in increasing transparency, the SRA has stepped up its transparency rules and encouraged comparison websites to become more involved in the legal sector.
New Voluntary Code for comparison sites:
The SRA introduced a voluntary code for comparison websites, requiring them to be independent and disclose relationships with law firms.
The code also requires reviews to be genuine and allows law firms to respond to client feedback.
Looking to the future
A period of change:
The SRA acknowledged that this is “not a steady state period,” referring to its challenges, including the ongoing review of its handling of the Axiom Ince case.
Potential financial impact on firms:
Law firms may soon face further fee increases, with the SRA likely requesting additional financial contributions as it navigates these growing challenges.
-
By Nawal Abdul Wahab
OIL: WHAT’S IN THE PIPELINE
Oil remains one of the most volatile commodities in the market. When you finish reading this, some details might already be outdated. After years of high petrol prices, drivers may have recently enjoyed a brief reprieve in fuel costs.
But what drives these fluctuations?
A tangled web of geopolitics, supply-demand imbalances, and environmental factors influence oil prices. In this article, I’ll explore the recent shifts in the oil market, the reasons behind its volatility, its broader implications, and the key commercial takeaways for aspiring solicitors.
The background
Oil powers nearly every aspect of modern life—from our homes and vehicles to industries. I say nearly because our consumption has undoubtedly decreased.
The Financial Times recently noted “that the planet consumes (just) 100mn real barrels every 24 hours shows how dominated by speculators the oil market has become”, highlighting how speculation, rather than pure supply and demand, often drives oil price movements.
Why has oil been so volatile recently?
Oil has always been susceptible to volatility. The current turmoil in the market isn’t unprecedented; macroeconomic factors and geopolitics have always been intertwined with oil prices.
Here are three significant contributors to the latest volatility:
- Geopolitics: Political instability in oil-rich regions, like the Middle East, disrupts supply chains and fuels investor uncertainty. In early September, escalating tensions caused oil prices to drop sharply. Although prices have partially recovered, WTI Crude remains 23% below its year-to-date high.
- Sell-offs: Investors’ role is less prominent but equally impactful. According to the FT, algorithmic trading has significantly influenced oil prices. Using technical rather than economic or political analysis, Hedge funds sold off massive amounts due to concerns over China’s economic slowdown and declining U.S. inflation.
As a result, oil dropped from $90 to below $70 per barrel between April and September. While geopolitics is a factor, it’s not solely responsible for these shifts.
- OPEC & supply/demand: OPEC and the International Energy Agency (IEA) have released conflicting predictions on global oil demand. OPEC expects demand to grow by 2 million barrels daily, while the IEA offers a more cautious forecast. Investor sentiment aligns more with the IEA’s outlook, further fuelling price volatility.
What might happen next?
Rising tensions in the Middle East and China’s recent economic moves have sparked renewed investor interest, temporarily halting the sell-off. However, many are hesitant to make significant investments until after the U.S. presidential election, amid uncertainties over potential tariffs under a possible Trump victory.
The future course of oil prices largely depends on whether OPEC or the IEA’s demand predictions prove accurate. If demand remains low, prices may continue to fall. But if OPEC is correct, expect a rebound.
Either way, one thing is clear: volatility is here to stay.
Commercial awareness takeaways for aspiring solicitors
- Macroeconomics & geopolitics: Geopolitical tensions and elections shape market trends, affecting consumer costs. Understanding these global influences is crucial for providing commercial legal advice.
- Dispute resolution: Oil market volatility often leads to disputes, especially in supply contracts. Current market conditions may lead lawyers to handle cases involving pricing, non-performance, or force majeure, which may require international arbitration.
- Sustainability & energy transition: Fluctuating oil prices and increased volatility could accelerate the shift to renewable energy. (Aspiring) solicitors should monitor energy policy changes and advise clients on transitioning from fossil fuels to greener alternatives, mitigating risks, and leveraging new incentives.
-
By Avishai Marcus
