The UK Court of Appeal recently ruled against Australian scientist Craig Wright in his legal battle against the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA). Wright, who claims to be the creator of Bitcoin under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto, failed to prove his authorship in the previous judgment. The court upheld the decision, stating that Wright’s claims lacked merit and that there was no reasonable prospect of success in challenging the ruling.
The original ruling came after a 22-day trial earlier this year, where it was concluded that Wright could not substantiate his claims to authorship of the Bitcoin whitepaper. Expert testimony and factual evidence presented during the trial contradicted his assertions. Dissatisfied with the outcome, Wright sought to appeal the decision but failed to provide compelling grounds for reconsideration. The court dismissed his appeal, stating that his accusations of judicial bias and improper treatment of evidence were unsubstantiated.
The ruling highlighted that the trial judge ensured Wright had a fair trial, rejecting claims of procedural unfairness. It also dismissed Wright’s criticisms of the treatment of expert evidence, noting that his own experts largely agreed with COPA’s witnesses on key points. Additionally, Wright’s authorization of decisions not to call certain witnesses or cross-examine others weakened his case. The court emphasized that the judge was justified in not treating Wright as a surrogate expert witness, given that he was the principal factual witness and had qualified experts.
Wright’s legal action rejection coincided with a scheduled contempt of court hearing on December 18. A UK judge has ordered Wright to attend the hearing in person. This development stems from a counterargument to his £900 billion claim against Jack Dorsey’s Square and BTC Core. If found guilty of contempt, Wright could face arrest or up to two years in prison. The court’s decision underscores the challenges Wright faces in proving his claims of being the creator of Bitcoin and the importance of credible evidence in legal battles.
In conclusion, the UK Court of Appeal’s rejection of Craig Wright’s appeal reinforces the previous ruling that he failed to prove his authorship of Bitcoin. The court dismissed Wright’s claims of judicial bias and improper treatment of evidence, stating that they lacked merit. The ruling emphasized that the trial judge ensured Wright had a fair trial and that his evidence was insufficient to support his assertion of being the Bitcoin whitepaper’s author. Wright’s upcoming contempt of court hearing adds to the legal challenges he faces in his ongoing battle with COPA and highlights the importance of credible evidence in legal disputes.
