In a recent court ruling, Judge James Mellor of the UK declared that Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto, the famed anonymous architect of Bitcoin, nor the author of its seminal whitepaper. Wright’s claim to be Satoshi has been settled by the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) trial that concluded on Thursday. Judge Mellor characterized the evidence presented against Wright as “overwhelming” and plans to detail his conclusions in an upcoming ruling, stating Wright did not create Bitcoin, nor author its software or its whitepaper.
This ruling is in response to a lawsuit brought on by COPA in 2021 that aimed to prevent Wright from pursuing legal action against crypto developers and others in the community, claiming intellectual property rights over Bitcoin’s technology. The judgement is considered a victory for the alliance, which has high-profile backing from industry figures such as Twitter founder Jack Dorsey and crypto platform Coinbase.
Furthermore, this decision is likely to impact two other lawsuits, one of which Wright initiated against Coinbase and Dorsey’s Block. In these suits, Wright asserted that he had database rights over the bitcoin blockchain, a claim that would require him to be the system’s creator.
In reaction to the developments, a COPA spokesperson stated that this verdict stands as a victory for developers, the larger open-source community, and factual truth, as it thwarts attempts by Wright and his financial backers to falsely claim the identity of Nakamoto as leverage to intimidate the Bitcoin community.
The topic of Wright’s future declarations provoked debate in court prior to the ruling. COPA sought injunctions against Wright to prevent him from declaring himself as Bitcoin’s creator. In response, Wright’s counsel, Lord Anthony Grabiner, argued such injunctions would infringe on Wright’s freedom of expression, even criminalizing casual conversations. A counter-argument was made by COPA’s solicitor, warning of continued litigation attempts by Wright against the crypto community. The timing for Mellor’s final written judgment remains unknown.