The claims made by Craig Wright (CSW), a questionable figure in the cryptocurrency world, regarding his patented inventions have sparked considerable debate and scrutiny. David Pearce, a UK-based patent attorney, has provided valuable insights into the veracity of these claims, especially in the context of the recent COPA vs Wright trial at the UK High Court. Let’s analyze the number of patented inventions Wright truly has, exploring the intricacies of patent ownership, invention authenticity, and the implications of Wright’s assertions.
Understanding “Patented Inventions”
Definitions and Wright’s Alleged Portfolio
To accurately assess Wright’s claims, it is crucial to define what constitutes a “patented invention.” A patented invention is defined in a patent application and has been granted by a patent office. Wright has claimed ownership of a staggering number, stating he has 4,000 and aims to reach 10,000. However, this requires a closer examination to avoid misconceptions, especially considering the potential for multiple grants in different countries.
But how many of these did (patents) Craig Wright actually invent? Many do not have CSW as an inventor at all.
David Pearce
Patent Ownership vs. Inventorship
An important distinction lies in understanding patent ownership versus inventorship. Wright does not personally own any patents; they are assigned to nChain, a company known for its blockchain and cryptocurrency research. Thus, a fair assessment would involve analyzing patents based on inventorship rather than ownership, providing a more accurate representation of Wright’s contributions.
Dissecting the Data from the European Patent Register
To gain a comprehensive view, data from the European Patent Register was utilized, revealing 533 applications with nChain as the applicant. This data forms the basis for evaluating the authenticity of Wright’s claims.
The European Patent Register is a comprehensive and publicly accessible database maintained by the European Patent Office (EPO). It serves as a crucial resource for anyone interested in the legal status of European patent applications and patents. The register provides detailed information on each application, including the application date, publication date, current status, and the identities of the applicant and inventor.
Additionally, it offers insights into the procedural steps of patent applications, such as examination reports, oppositions, and patent grant data.
Status of Patent Applications
The status of the patent applications associated with Craig Wright presents a diverse and complex picture. Out of the 533 applications filed, a majority, 394, are still pending, awaiting decisions from the patent office. This state of limbo suggests a significant portion of Wright’s alleged contributions to the field are yet to receive formal recognition or rejection. Meanwhile, 20 applications have been outright refused, indicating that they did not meet the necessary criteria for patentability. Another 20 have been allowed, signaling impending patent grants. Most notably, 99 applications have successfully navigated the rigorous examination process and have been granted, representing tangible, recognized inventions.
Within this granted group, 3 face opposition, which could potentially alter their patent status. Assuming each of these granted patents corresponds to a unique invention, this would indicate 99 distinct contributions to the field. However, this number becomes more ambiguous when considering Wright’s direct role. While he is associated with these applications, the extent of his personal involvement and contribution as an inventor in each case remains less definitive, casting a shadow of uncertainty over the true measure of his inventive input. This discrepancy points to the need for a more nuanced understanding of patent attribution, especially in cases where the inventor’s claim to fame hinges significantly on the number of patents held.
Wright’s Involvement in Inventions
A deeper dive into these patents shows that many do not list Wright as an inventor, and in cases where he is a joint inventor, his specific contribution is uncertain. Further, in several patents, Wright was added as an inventor years after the initial filing, raising questions about his actual role in these inventions.
Evaluating Wright’s Genuine Patented Inventions
Wright as the Sole Inventor
In the analysis of Craig Wright’s role as an inventor, particular attention must be paid to patents where he is listed as the sole inventor. Upon reviewing the data, it becomes evident that Wright is the only inventor named in a mere 41 patent applications. Out of these, a surprisingly low number of only 6 have successfully been granted. This finding starkly contrasts with Wright’s earlier claims of owning thousands of patents. Such a discrepancy not only raises questions about the validity of Wright’s claims but also underscores a significant gap between his assertions and the reality as reflected in the patent records.
This revelation is critical as it casts doubt on the extent of Wright’s contributions to these inventions and highlights the need for scrutiny when evaluating claims of prolific inventiveness, especially in the rapidly evolving and highly competitive field of technology.
Caveats and Further Considerations
- Unpublished Applications: There are additional applications yet to be published, but these are not granted by definition.
- International Patents: Wright may have other granted patents in various countries as the sole inventor. However, this would only marginally increase the total, possibly to double figures.
- Potential Double Counting: While efforts were made to avoid double counting by country, there’s still a risk of duplication due to similar-scope patents stemming from one application.
- Authenticity of Inventions: A fundamental assumption is that these patents represent true inventions, i.e., they are new and inventive. This may not always hold true.
Reassessing Wright’s Inventive Claims
The analysis conducted by David Pearce provides a more grounded perspective on Craig Wright’s claims about his patented inventions. Contrary to Wright’s assertions, the evidence suggests a significantly smaller number of patented inventions can be attributed to him directly. This revelation invites a broader discussion on the authenticity and validity of claims made within the tech and cryptocurrency sectors, emphasizing the need for meticulous scrutiny and factual verification.
Wright’s case serves as a cautionary tale, underscoring the importance of distinguishing between hyperbolic claims and substantiated achievements in the rapidly evolving world of technology and intellectual property.
Author Profile
- Lucy Walker covers finance, health and beauty since 2014. She has been writing for various online publications.
Latest entries
- April 25, 2025Global EconomicsWhistleblowers Unmask Schwab’s Toxic WEF Secrets
- April 9, 2025Global EconomicsTariff Tensions Drive Market Volatility
- March 18, 2025Global EconomicsRed in Name Only: Labour’s War on the UK Working Class
- March 7, 2025SatoshiCraig Wright Banned from UK Courts with Civil Restraint Order