Dorian Nakamoto Wants To Sue Newsweek -- But It Seems Unlikely To Succeed And Could Cause More Problems For Him

from the freedom-of-the-press-isn't-always-pretty dept

As you may recall, earlier this year, Newsweek "relaunched" with a cover story by reporter Leah McGrath Goodman claiming to have unmasked the real creator of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was created by someone (or some people) using the name Satoshi Nakamoto, but no one knew who it really was, and over the past few years Nakamoto had more or less disappeared from the Bitcoin scene. Newsweek claimed that Nakamoto was really a person named Satoshi Nakamoto, who actually goes by the name Dorian Nakamoto. The article was weakly sourced, heavy on speculation and based its key arguments on some really clueless assumptions. The most ridiculous parts involved the "forensic analysis" that Newsweek supposedly relied on in identifying Nakamoto. Specifically, this "forensic analyst" looked at the original Bitcoin paper and noted what she said were "old-school technological tropes" -- specifically, discussions about saving disk space, mentioning Moore's Law, and the use of two spaces after a period. This, according to Newsweek, pointed to a much older engineer:

"The idea of conserving any kind of resources, and this is part of my formation, my long background in systems testing, that was a critical issue. But those are very very old-time concerns," she said. "To even mention disk space, things like that — disk space is cheap! And Moore's Law is an old maxim that computing power will double. We've gone exponentially away from Moore's law, but that was what it was all about in that interim period."

Except that while disk space is cheap, the size of the Bitcoin blockchain is a big deal since the whole basis of Bitcoin relies on an ever growing blockchain, and if you didn't figure out ways to minimize the need to redownload the entire blockchain, it would create a massive problem for Bitcoin. The concerns about space weren't archaic at all, but right on point. As for the claim that "we've gone exponentially away from Moore's law"? I mean, that's just flat out wrong.

Either way, it became pretty clear pretty quickly that Dorian Nakamoto wasn't Satoshi Nakamoto -- though Newsweek (bizarrely) still stands by its story. The latest, however is that Dorian Nakamoto has launched a crowdfunding effort to sue Newsweek on a website called NewsweekLied (and for those wondering, Nakamoto's lawyer has confirmed the page is legit).

I sympathize with Nakamoto, having his life shaken up by a shoddy reporting job, plucking him out of obscurity and incorrectly naming him as the creator of Bitcoin. But... I have a lot of trouble seeing how any lawsuit could possibly make sense. In fact, it seems likely that any lawsuit could actually make things worse for Dorian Nakamoto. From the details on the website, it appears that they're likely to use a combination of false light and defamation claims. Both would be pretty difficult to prove, though false light is perhaps a lower bar in this case. The real problem, though, is that most of what is in the article could be considered to reflect positively on Nakamoto, rather than negatively. Claiming he was a secret, if eccentric, creator of a global cryptographic currency phenomenon? Even if it's false (as it appears to be), how would that be "highly offensive to a reasonable person" as required under California law?

As for a defamation claim, they probably wouldn't have to show "actual malice" since Nakamoto wasn't a public figure (though, potentially Newsweek would argue that the Nakamoto they thought they were identifying was a public figure, and thus the higher bar should apply), but they would still have to show the harm to Nakamoto's reputation, leading to the same problem as the false light issue.

Also, Nakamoto's lawyers would likely have to show that Newsweek knew the story was wrong (which doesn't appear to be the case) or that it was "negligent" in reporting the story. While I think we agree that Newsweek was sloppy and there was just generally bad reporting and bad conclusions involved, to reach the level of negligence is not easy.

And here's where it gets even more difficult for Nakamoto. As we've discussed many times in the past, California (thankfully!) has a strong anti-SLAPP law that protects publishers from being sued in an attempt to silence their reporting on issues of public interest. We're big fans of California's anti-SLAPP laws and you'd have to imagine that Newsweek would seek to be protected under that law. And, the bigger issue for Nakamoto is that under California's anti-SLAPP law, if Newsweek were to win, it can go after Nakamoto for its legal fees. And, the law actually would allow Newsweek to go even further, and file a SLAPPback lawsuit, to seek compensatory and punitive damages (though, that might be a longshot for Newsweek).

As ridiculous as the original article was, and as sympathetic as I may be to Dorian Nakamoto's situation, it's difficult to see how his lawsuit has much of a chance. Conceivably, there could be other claims made, or additional evidence that Nakamoto's lawyers think they have on Newsweek, but it seems like a massive longshot and a situation that could potentially create more legal headaches for Nakamoto than it solves.

Filed Under: anti-slapp, bitcoin, california, defamation, dorian nakamoto, false light, inventor, leah mcgrath goodman, satoshi nakamoto, slapp
Companies: newsweek

How The Guy Who Didn't Invent Email Got Memorialized In The Press & The Smithsonian As The Inventor Of Email

from the damn-you-wikipedia dept

Late last week, the Washington Post reported that The Smithsonian had acquired "tapes, documentation, copyrights, and over 50,000 lines of code from V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai, who both the Smithsonian and the Washington Post insisted was the "inventor of e-mail." There's just one problem with this: It's not actually true. Lots of internet old-timers quickly started to speak out against this, especially on Dave Farber's Interesting People email list, where they highlighted how it's just not true. As is nicely summarized on Wikipedia's talk page about Ayyadurai, he was responsible for "merely inventing an email management system that he named EMAIL," which came long after email itself. The Washington Post eventually offered the following "clarification":

Clarification: A number of readers have accurately pointed out that electronic messaging predates V. A. Shiva Ayyadurai’s work in 1978. However, Ayyadurai holds the copyright to the computer program called "email," establishing him as the creator of the “computer program for [an] electronic mail system” with that name, according to the U.S. Copyright Office.

Except... that "clarification" seems to confuse copyright with patents. Copyright is only over the specific copyrightable work created -- which would be the specific code he used. It does not, in any way, establish him as "the creator" of "the" electronic mail system -- merely an electronic mail system -- and hardly the first one. I could write some sort of email management software tomorrow and copyright that... and it would no more make me an "inventor" of email than Ayyadurai.

There's a detailed history of email over at the NetHistory site, and you'll note that Ayyadurai doesn't warrant a mention -- which isn't surprising since his work comes way after most of the important stuff was done. Thomas Haigh sent a detailed email to the SIGCIS list, breaking down what happened. Apparently, Time Magazine ran a profile of Ayyadurai a few months back, calling him "the man who invented email," which resulted in the Smithsonian's interest. But even that article notes at the beginning that Ayyadurai actually just holds a copyright on EMAIL, rather than email itself. It even asks about the fact that Ray Tomlinson is often credited as being the inventor of email -- and his efforts came much earlier.

Either way, it appears that Ayyadurai has played up this idea that he's the inventor of email, despite little to back that up (apparently frustrating many people who actually know the history). Yes, he copyrighted a particular bit of code, but there's little to support the idea that he had very much to do with "the invention of email" in any way. But, that's not what the Washington Post (or, apparently, the Smithsonian) will tell you...

Filed Under: copyright, email, history, inventor, va shiva ayyadurai
Companies: smithsonian, time, washington post

Latest Pointless Patent Claims: Who Invented The Wii Controller?

from the you-need-to-own-a-patent-to-enforce-it dept

One of the problems we have in the various discussions about patent and copyright law is that people falsely assume that both systems are designed to give "credit" to the original creator and to somehow enforce "fairness" in making sure that original creator receives recognition. That has never been the case. Both are designed to create monopolies, to provide incentives to create. That has nothing to do with credit -- and, that's especially clear in patent situations where the actual people named on the patent are rarely parties to a case, as it's more often owned by a firm (such as the company the person worked for). Most companies require that their employees assign any patents to the company. So it seems fairly ridiculous to find out that a guy who doesn't actually own the patents he received is pissed off at Nintendo for using his idea in their Wii controllers. The guy worked for Midway Games, a popular videogame maker, who now owns the patents in question. It's difficult to see what his complaint is, since the patents are no longer his and Midway does not appear to have any problem with what Nintendo has done. In the video itself, a patent attorney suggests that the Wii seems to go well beyond the patents in question and it seems unlikely that Nintendo is infringing -- but since the few second demo looks similar, it makes for a nice news cast claiming someone "stole" an idea.

The likely situation is probably a lot less interesting. Lots of folks have been working on motion sensing videogame controllers for quite some time. This wasn't a new concept that sprung up overnight. There are also many different ways to create such a tool and just because the end results look similar, don't mean that a patent was infringed. However, an even bigger point is one that we've been trying to drive home for a while. The invention part is only one small part of the equation. Innovating and actually bringing the product to market is more important -- and that's what Nintendo did successfully. This guy worked for a gaming company and came up with a prototype six years ago and didn't do anything with it. While lots of folks were trying to come up with motion sensing gaming devices, Nintendo successfully brought one to market.

Filed Under: inventor, patents, wii
Companies: midway, nintendo