The UK Supreme Court has dealt a blow to self-proclaimed ‘Fake Satoshi‘ Craig Wright by denying him permission to appeal in a libel case against bitcoin podcaster Peter McCormack. This decision comes after a panel of judges in July deemed Wright entitled to a mere 1 GBP in compensation for his questionable claim to be Bitcoin inventor Satoshi Nakamoto.
Supreme Court denies Craig Wright’s appeal
Rupert Cowper-Coles, a partner at law firm RPC representing McCormack, shared the news, stating, “We actually only just found out about it, but it was at the end of last year, [the] Supreme Court refused permission for Craig Wright’s appeal. So they’re very pleased that judgment stands – [the] one pound nominal damages award, which Craig has tried to appeal twice unsuccessfully.”
Wright’s setback in the libel case is just one episode in a series of legal battles he is currently entangled in. Another problem for Craig Wright involves him saying that some crypto companies and bitcoin developers did something wrong. He claims they broke the rules about his supposed ownership of Bitcoin’s white paper, blockchain database, and file format.
Allegations of copyright violations
The non-profit organization Cryptocurrency Open Patent Alliance (COPA), representing 13 Bitcoin Core developers, as well as companies like Coinbase and Block named in Wright’s 2016 legal complaint, rejected an offer to settle the prolonged case. These companies are accused of breaking the rules by using the Bitcoin network and its databases for their work, which Craig Wright says is a violation of his rights.
COPA took to Twitter to express their stance, stating, “Hard pass on that ‘settlement.’ The settlement offer isn’t quite accurate either – it comes with loopholes that would allow him to sue people all over again.”
The refusal to accept the agreement shows that the legal problems with Craig Wright are still going on and are quite complicated. This latest development in the libel case further solidifies the 1 GBP nominal damages award as the final judgment, with the Supreme Court refusing Wright’s appeal for the second time.
Transitioning to the broader context of Wright’s legal battles, it is evident that the rejection of the settlement offer by COPA emphasizes their determination to stand against what they perceive as inaccuracies in the proposal. The refusal shows that they all stand together to avoid possible legal problems and tricks that might make them open to more lawsuits in the future.
