It's not clear from this article or the linked Ontier statement whether Wright requested damages or whether the court came up with that as a matter of law or custom.
I assume damages were requested, which may lead to deanonymization of "Cobra," which might be the ulterior motive for doing this.
Any more info on the specific material that they are claiming is being copyright infringed? Is it the whitepaper itself? Seems kind of pointless to have an injunction against one site, this paper will be all over the 'Net at this point.
It's the famous Bitcoin white paper by Satoshi. The linked Ontier press release* quotes Wright's legal team:
>“Dr Wright does not wish to restrict access to his White Paper. However, he does not agree that it should be used by supporters and developers of alternative assets, such as Bitcoin Core, to promote or otherwise misrepresent those assets as being Bitcoin given that they do not support or align with the vision for Bitcoin as he set out in his White Paper.”
They're saying the project bitcoin.org promotes is using the whitepaper dishonestly to promote itself. Which resembles to me a trademark dispute, instead. And usually the trademark or copyright owner has solid proof of ownership.
A few years ago there were certainly a number of people who did not believe him. I worked for a guy at a failed quantum lisp startup who kept trying to convince people around him that he was the real Satoshi. He was one of many. So I can understand why, with so many original Satoshis out there, people might continue to have a hard time believing without proof.
12 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 40.0 ms ] threadI assume damages were requested, which may lead to deanonymization of "Cobra," which might be the ulterior motive for doing this.
Glad to know that it's still there.
idk who cobra is, but why would they need financial help, did they buy in at $60k or something?
>“Dr Wright does not wish to restrict access to his White Paper. However, he does not agree that it should be used by supporters and developers of alternative assets, such as Bitcoin Core, to promote or otherwise misrepresent those assets as being Bitcoin given that they do not support or align with the vision for Bitcoin as he set out in his White Paper.”
They're saying the project bitcoin.org promotes is using the whitepaper dishonestly to promote itself. Which resembles to me a trademark dispute, instead. And usually the trademark or copyright owner has solid proof of ownership.
* https://www.ontier.digital/post/uk-court-awards-bitcoin-crea...
A few years ago there were certainly a number of people who did not believe him. I worked for a guy at a failed quantum lisp startup who kept trying to convince people around him that he was the real Satoshi. He was one of many. So I can understand why, with so many original Satoshis out there, people might continue to have a hard time believing without proof.