Dr Craig Steven Wright & Ors v BTC Core & Ors
[2023] EWHC 222 (Ch)
Dr Craig Steven Wright & Ors v BTC Core (a partnership) & Ors
20 July 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 868
Court of Appeal
Someone claims they invented Bitcoin and its code. A judge said they couldn't prove it was properly recorded to have copyright. A higher court said, 'Yes they can, because the first Bitcoin block shows the code's structure clearly enough, even without a separate explanation.' So the case can proceed.
Key Facts
- •Dr Craig Wright claims to be the creator of Bitcoin and claims copyright in the Bitcoin File Format and the Bitcoin White Paper.
- •Wright brought a claim against various defendants for copyright infringement related to two 'airdrops' that created parallel Bitcoin systems (BTC and BCH).
- •The key issue is whether copyright subsists in the Bitcoin File Format, requiring it to be 'recorded, in writing or otherwise' (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s.3(2)).
- •The judge at first instance refused permission to serve the claim form outside the jurisdiction for the copyright claim on the Bitcoin File Format, finding no real prospect of success in establishing copyright subsistence.
- •Wright appealed this decision.
Legal Principles
Copyright does not subsist in a literary, dramatic or musical work unless and until it is recorded, in writing or otherwise.
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s.3(2)
A work must be original in the sense that it is the author's own intellectual creation.
Software Directive, Article 1(3)
Copyright protection extends to expressions and not to ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such.
TRIPS Agreement, Article 9(2); WIPO Copyright Treaty, Article 2
For copyright to subsist, the work must be identifiable with sufficient precision and objectivity.
Case C-310/17 Levola Hengelo BV v Smilde Foods BV
Fixation is a requirement for copyright subsistence, serving evidential and definitional purposes.
Berne Convention, Article 2(2); Ricketson and Ginsburg, International Copyright and Neighbouring Rights
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.
The lower court wrongly conflated the 'work' and its 'fixation'. The Bitcoin File Format was clearly identified as a work. The Court of Appeal found a real prospect that the fixation requirement was met, as the first block in the blockchain recorded the structure with sufficient precision and objectivity, serving the evidential and definitional purposes of fixation. Schedule 2 was not relied upon as the fixation, and its creation date was irrelevant to the claim.
Similar Cases
Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Craig Steven Wright
[2023] EWHC 1894 (Ch)
Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Craig Steven Wright & Ors
[2023] EWHC 3287 (Ch)
Tulip Trading Limited (a Seychelles company) v Wladimir Jasper van der Laan & Ors.
[2023] EWCA Civ 83
Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Craig Steven Wright (POC Amendment)
[2023] EWHC 2642 (Ch)