FormDr gives businesses everything needed to easily send and receive HIPAA compliant forms online.

FormDr

formdr

COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 21 of 42. 19. Tominaka Nakamoto: Monumenta Nipponica {ID_004019} / {L2/245/1} 355. The document presents as a printout of a journal article concerning a historical figure called “Nakamoto”, purportedly downloaded on 5 January 2008, and annotated by Dr Wright by hand in his own handwriting in terms associating himself with that historical figure “Nakamoto”. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 356. The document has been backdated. [PM6 [55]. The timestamp at the top of the document has been altered, with the digits of the hour and of the year entered in different font to the rest of the timestamp. [PM6 [3]]. 357. The document is a hand-annotated printout of a digital document [PM6 [5]]. The underlying digital document has not been disclosed. 358. The original source of the document was discovered by searching on the internet. [PM6 [27-30]]. 359. The genuine date of the source document is not 2008, but 2015. The document remains available online now. [PM6 [27-32]]. 360. The original document was downloaded from the academic repository website JSTOR. By inspection of the footer against a comparator data set of over 180 other documents downloaded from JSTOR, it is possible to identify 7 epochs during which the design of the footer of JSTOR documents changed in the decade between January 2007 and December 2016. The dates of changes of design can be pinpointed to six specific days in that decade. By comparison of the footer of {ID_004019} to that data set, it is possible to establish that the footer is contemporary to the period between 19 March 2013 and 22 March 2016. [PM6 [33-47]]. 361. Further, by comparison with 10 other independently-downloaded documents dated 5 Jan 2008 within that dataset, it can be established that the footer of the {ID_004019} is notably different from those on documents from 2008, and therefore is not contemporaneous with such documents from 2008. [PM6 [48-51]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 362. The underlying digital document has not been disclosed. 363. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. by suggesting that he had read a paper about Tominaga Nakamoto before he coined the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto), contrary to fact. 364. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright claims that the name “Satoshi Nakamoto” was chosen due to his ‘admiration for the philosopher Tominaga Nakamoto’. It is to be inferred that this forgery was done to support that aspect of his claim. [Wright1 [66]]. 365. Dr Wright has publicly asserted this document to be supportive of his claim. 366. Dr Wright has publicly maintained the authenticity of this document in social media posts. 367. This document was photographed by Dr Wright for transmission via WhatsApp [PM6 [7]]. The photograph was taken around 1 week before this document was scanned into PDF form. This is consistent with other examples within disclosure where Dr Wright has photographed other documents bearing indicia of tampering, for sending via WhatsApp, before they were scanned and disclosed. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 368. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright claimed that the document dating from 2015 which Mr Madden downloaded from the internet and identified as the source document was copied from his document and then edited. He claims that this was done after he had mentioned the document as his inspiration. See {CSW/2/68}. In his oral evidence, Dr Wright added that this had been done by the person operating the gwern.net website, who he claimed had been working together with Ira Kleiman to discredit him: {Day2/21:13} to {Day2/22:16}. Thus, Dr Wright’s claim is that his document, with an “accessed” date from 2008 is genuine and that a false version was produced by his enemies to reflect an “accessed” date from 2015 and uploaded to the internet in order to undermine his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 369. COPA submitted that Dr Wright’s explanation should be rejected as dishonest, for the following reasons: 369.1. It is inherently implausible that Dr Wright’s version should be authentic and the version accessed from the internet should have been doctored, since the numerals in the “accessed” date are misaligned in Dr Wright’s version (suggesting manipulation) but the numerals in that date are perfectly aligned in the version on the internet. 369.2. There is a second powerful reason why Dr Wright’s version is inauthentic, namely that the footer design corresponds to JSTOR documents dating from 2015 and not to such documents dating from 2008. Mr Madden has reviewed a large sample of JSTOR documents and established that the footer design was updated at set points in time, so that he can be confident from the footer design that Dr Wright’s document does not date to 2008. He was unshaken in that position on crossexamination: {Day16/66:7} to {Day16/68:7}. 369.3. Although Dr Wright asserted that different JSTOR repositories had footer designs updating at different times and that he had documents to make good that proposition ({Day2/20:13} to {Day2/21:6}), there is no documentary support for that assertion (which is at odds with Mr Madden’s findings). It is reasonably to be inferred that, if that assertion could be made good, Dr Wright’s well-resourced legal team would have done so. 369.4. Dr Wright’s essential conspiracy theory does not work as a matter of the dates. He gave the interview in which he publicly cited this document as his inspiration for the Nakamoto name in December 2019 (see {L16/86/1}; {L16/47/1}). The document which he now says was doctored and released to discredit him has been available online in precisely the same form since 2016: see PM6, [30]. 369.5. There is not a shred of evidence for Dr Wright’s conspiracy theory. It is also an odd story, even on its own terms, since Ira Kleiman’s claim depended on saying that Dr Wright was part of “Satoshi Nakamoto”. (d) Conclusion 370. I can only agree with COPA’s submissions. The document was plainly forged by Dr Wright. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 21 of 42. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part of this filing here . This part is 21 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 19. Tominaka Nakamoto: Monumenta Nipponica {ID_004019} / {L2/245/1} 355. The document presents as a printout of a journal article concerning a historical figure called “Nakamoto”, purportedly downloaded on 5 January 2008, and annotated by Dr Wright by hand in his own handwriting in terms associating himself with that historical figure “Nakamoto”. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 356. The document has been backdated. [PM6 [55]. The timestamp at the top of the document has been altered, with the digits of the hour and of the year entered in different font to the rest of the timestamp. [PM6 [3]]. 357. The document is a hand-annotated printout of a digital document [PM6 [5]]. The underlying digital document has not been disclosed. 358. The original source of the document was discovered by searching on the internet. [PM6 [27-30]]. 359. The genuine date of the source document is not 2008, but 2015. The document remains available online now. [PM6 [27-32]]. 360. The original document was downloaded from the academic repository website JSTOR. By inspection of the footer against a comparator data set of over 180 other documents downloaded from JSTOR, it is possible to identify 7 epochs during which the design of the footer of JSTOR documents changed in the decade between January 2007 and December 2016. The dates of changes of design can be pinpointed to six specific days in that decade. By comparison of the footer of {ID_004019} to that data set, it is possible to establish that the footer is contemporary to the period between 19 March 2013 and 22 March 2016. [PM6 [33-47]]. 361. Further, by comparison with 10 other independently-downloaded documents dated 5 Jan 2008 within that dataset, it can be established that the footer of the {ID_004019} is notably different from those on documents from 2008, and therefore is not contemporaneous with such documents from 2008. [PM6 [48-51]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 362. The underlying digital document has not been disclosed. 363. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. by suggesting that he had read a paper about Tominaga Nakamoto before he coined the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto), contrary to fact. 364. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright claims that the name “Satoshi Nakamoto” was chosen due to his ‘admiration for the philosopher Tominaga Nakamoto’. It is to be inferred that this forgery was done to support that aspect of his claim. [Wright1 [66]]. 365. Dr Wright has publicly asserted this document to be supportive of his claim. 366. Dr Wright has publicly maintained the authenticity of this document in social media posts. 367. This document was photographed by Dr Wright for transmission via WhatsApp [PM6 [7]]. The photograph was taken around 1 week before this document was scanned into PDF form. This is consistent with other examples within disclosure where Dr Wright has photographed other documents bearing indicia of tampering, for sending via WhatsApp, before they were scanned and disclosed. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 368. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright claimed that the document dating from 2015 which Mr Madden downloaded from the internet and identified as the source document was copied from his document and then edited. He claims that this was done after he had mentioned the document as his inspiration. See {CSW/2/68}. In his oral evidence, Dr Wright added that this had been done by the person operating the gwern.net website, who he claimed had been working together with Ira Kleiman to discredit him: {Day2/21:13} to {Day2/22:16}. Thus, Dr Wright’s claim is that his document, with an “accessed” date from 2008 is genuine and that a false version was produced by his enemies to reflect an “accessed” date from 2015 and uploaded to the internet in order to undermine his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 369. COPA submitted that Dr Wright’s explanation should be rejected as dishonest, for the following reasons: 369.1. It is inherently implausible that Dr Wright’s version should be authentic and the version accessed from the internet should have been doctored, since the numerals in the “accessed” date are misaligned in Dr Wright’s version (suggesting manipulation) but the numerals in that date are perfectly aligned in the version on the internet. 369.2. There is a second powerful reason why Dr Wright’s version is inauthentic, namely that the footer design corresponds to JSTOR documents dating from 2015 and not to such documents dating from 2008. Mr Madden has reviewed a large sample of JSTOR documents and established that the footer design was updated at set points in time, so that he can be confident from the footer design that Dr Wright’s document does not date to 2008. He was unshaken in that position on crossexamination: {Day16/66:7} to {Day16/68:7}. 369.3. Although Dr Wright asserted that different JSTOR repositories had footer designs updating at different times and that he had documents to make good that proposition ({Day2/20:13} to {Day2/21:6}), there is no documentary support for that assertion (which is at odds with Mr Madden’s findings). It is reasonably to be inferred that, if that assertion could be made good, Dr Wright’s well-resourced legal team would have done so. 369.4. Dr Wright’s essential conspiracy theory does not work as a matter of the dates. He gave the interview in which he publicly cited this document as his inspiration for the Nakamoto name in December 2019 (see {L16/86/1}; {L16/47/1}). The document which he now says was doctored and released to discredit him has been available online in precisely the same form since 2016: see PM6, [30]. 369.5. There is not a shred of evidence for Dr Wright’s conspiracy theory. It is also an odd story, even on its own terms, since Ira Kleiman’s claim depended on saying that Dr Wright was part of “Satoshi Nakamoto”. (d) Conclusion (d) Conclusion 370. I can only agree with COPA’s submissions. The document was plainly forged by Dr Wright. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. judiciary.uk judiciary.uk

COPA Challenges Authenticity of Craig Wright’s Tominaga Nakamoto Document

COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 20 of 42. 18. “ESDT.tex” {ID_004736} {PTR-F/93/1} 340. The document is a LaTeX source presented as if it was precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper created during Dr Wright’s employment at BDO. Dr Wright relies upon it as a draft addressing technical concepts which influenced his development of Bitcoin. By its presence in BDOPC.raw, the document purports to pre-date 31 October 2007. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 341. This document is among the 71 New Reliance Documents that were inserted into the BDO Drive by the editing process and which the parties’ experts agree were manipulated [Madden / Lynch1 [12] Q/6/5]. 342. Copies of the document are also located on the Samsung Drive. These copies display signs of metadata editing and clock manipulation. [PM46 [74-79] H/278/17] 343. A related LaTeX file has been recovered which encodes the same textual content in a different way. That document had been deleted but was recoverable from within the Samsung Drive. The structure of that file is consistent with the file being generated automatically by software conversion tools (rather than being authored by hand). [Madden4 [67-70] H/278/16]. 344. There is a related file {ID_004735} which appears intended to create an image for the paper. The code in that file is consistent with having been generated by conversion tools such as Aspose. [Madden3 [75] G/5/31] 345. A related document, ESDT.pdf, was recovered from the Samsung Drive. ESDT.pdf was a compiled form of {ID_004736} but was deleted and emptied from the Recycle Bin in September 2023 [PM46 [41-52] H/278/10]. The metadata associated with the deleted file indicates that it was modified on 16 September 2023, but the other timestamps have been backdated to 31 October 2007. 346. The metadata of this document (when compared with metadata of other documents related to it) displays signs of metadata editing directly using specialised metadata editing tools. [Madden3 [52-63] G/5/23] 347. The document was sourced from BDOPC.raw. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 348. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, contrary to fact. 349. The further effect of tampering is to lend support to Dr Wright’s new position that the Bitcoin White Paper was created in LaTeX. That story is a recent product of Dr Wright’s change in his account. 350. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. Paragraph 45 of the section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 351. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to this document: 351.1. It is said to be among Dr Wright’s “Notes, drafts and articles addressing technical concepts that underpin the concepts developed in the Bitcoin White Paper" [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/4] 351.2. It is said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because it is a version of “a paper prepared for a 360º Security Summit on 15 June 2006 concerned with “Implementing Effective Risk-Based Controls”, which Dr Wright prepared in his role at BDO. The hash chain technology discussed in the paper is analogous to the blockchain technology used in Bitcoin." [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/5] 352. The document was not disclosed at the proper time. It was disclosed instead from the BDOPC.raw image. BDOPC.raw is not a reliable source because it has been manipulated by Dr Wright. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 353. Dr Wright claimed that his use of Xcopy had caused the load file metadata for this and two related documents to all have creation times at precisely the same time on 19 September 2017, with August 2008 accessed and modified times for this document and one other related one. He also claimed that he was still accessing files at BDO in 2008 and so that these may have been copied from a different drive: {Day5/102:21} and following. See Wright11 {CSW/2/43} for an example of him claiming how Xcopy works. 354. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 354.1. If the BDOPC.raw is accepted as being forged, it follows that documents on it should be treated as being forged unless they are documents which Mr Madden says are original to the image that was taken in October 2007. 354.2. Mr Madden states that Xcopy simply does not have the effect that Dr Wright claims. This was also the view of Mr Lynch, as recorded in their Joint Report: {Q/6/4}. 354.3. Dr Wright’s excuse about accessing files at BDO in 2008 is inconsistent with his claim that the files on the BDO Drive are a time capsule and taken from a capture of the BDO files he had in 2007. 354.4. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_0004736 was manipulated: {Q/6/5}. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 20 of 42. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part of this filing here . This part is 20 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 18. “ESDT.tex” {ID_004736} {PTR-F/93/1} 340. The document is a LaTeX source presented as if it was precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper created during Dr Wright’s employment at BDO. Dr Wright relies upon it as a draft addressing technical concepts which influenced his development of Bitcoin. By its presence in BDOPC.raw, the document purports to pre-date 31 October 2007. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 341. This document is among the 71 New Reliance Documents that were inserted into the BDO Drive by the editing process and which the parties’ experts agree were manipulated [Madden / Lynch1 [12] Q/6/5]. 342. Copies of the document are also located on the Samsung Drive. These copies display signs of metadata editing and clock manipulation. [PM46 [74-79] H/278/17] 343. A related LaTeX file has been recovered which encodes the same textual content in a different way. That document had been deleted but was recoverable from within the Samsung Drive. The structure of that file is consistent with the file being generated automatically by software conversion tools (rather than being authored by hand). [Madden4 [67-70] H/278/16]. 344. There is a related file {ID_004735} which appears intended to create an image for the paper. The code in that file is consistent with having been generated by conversion tools such as Aspose. [Madden3 [75] G/5/31] 345. A related document, ESDT.pdf, was recovered from the Samsung Drive. ESDT.pdf was a compiled form of {ID_004736} but was deleted and emptied from the Recycle Bin in September 2023 [PM46 [41-52] H/278/10]. The metadata associated with the deleted file indicates that it was modified on 16 September 2023, but the other timestamps have been backdated to 31 October 2007. 346. The metadata of this document (when compared with metadata of other documents related to it) displays signs of metadata editing directly using specialised metadata editing tools. [Madden3 [52-63] G/5/23] 347. The document was sourced from BDOPC.raw. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 348. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, contrary to fact. 349. The further effect of tampering is to lend support to Dr Wright’s new position that the Bitcoin White Paper was created in LaTeX. That story is a recent product of Dr Wright’s change in his account. 350. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. Paragraph 45 of the section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 351. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to this document: 351.1. It is said to be among Dr Wright’s “Notes, drafts and articles addressing technical concepts that underpin the concepts developed in the Bitcoin White Paper" [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/4] “Notes, drafts and articles addressing technical concepts that underpin the concepts developed in the Bitcoin White Paper" 351.2. It is said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because it is a version of “a paper prepared for a 360º Security Summit on 15 June 2006 concerned with “Implementing Effective Risk-Based Controls”, which Dr Wright prepared in his role at BDO. The hash chain technology discussed in the paper is analogous to the blockchain technology used in Bitcoin." [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/5] “a paper prepared for a 360º Security Summit on 15 June 2006 concerned with “Implementing Effective Risk-Based Controls”, which Dr Wright prepared in his role at BDO. The hash chain technology discussed in the paper is analogous to the blockchain technology used in Bitcoin." 352. The document was not disclosed at the proper time. It was disclosed instead from the BDOPC.raw image. BDOPC.raw is not a reliable source because it has been manipulated by Dr Wright. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 353. Dr Wright claimed that his use of Xcopy had caused the load file metadata for this and two related documents to all have creation times at precisely the same time on 19 September 2017, with August 2008 accessed and modified times for this document and one other related one. He also claimed that he was still accessing files at BDO in 2008 and so that these may have been copied from a different drive: {Day5/102:21} and following. See Wright11 {CSW/2/43} for an example of him claiming how Xcopy works. 354. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 354.1. If the BDOPC.raw is accepted as being forged, it follows that documents on it should be treated as being forged unless they are documents which Mr Madden says are original to the image that was taken in October 2007. 354.2. Mr Madden states that Xcopy simply does not have the effect that Dr Wright claims. This was also the view of Mr Lynch, as recorded in their Joint Report: {Q/6/4}. 354.3. Dr Wright’s excuse about accessing files at BDO in 2008 is inconsistent with his claim that the files on the BDO Drive are a time capsule and taken from a capture of the BDO files he had in 2007. 354.4. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_0004736 was manipulated: {Q/6/5}. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. judiciary.uk judiciary.uk

Craig Wright’s LaTeX document "ESDT.tex" Faces Forgery Allegations from COPA

COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 19 of 42. 17. “LPA.tex” and “LP1.tex” {ID_004722} {PTR-F/79/1} and {ID_004723} {PTRF/80/1} 328. These are two LaTeX source documents presented as if they are precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper. The first presents as an article with Satoshi named as author, while the second presents as a version of the same article with Dr Wright named as author. Each addresses quorum systems, a subject which Dr Wright now maintains influenced his development of Bitcoin. By their presence in BDOPC.raw, the documents purport to pre-date 31 October 2007. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 329. These documents are among the 71 New Reliance Documents that were inserted into the BDO Drive by the editing process and which the parties’ experts agree were manipulated [Madden / Lynch1 [12] Q/6/5]. 330. The section on BDOPC.raw above is repeated. Comparing the deleted versions of these documents to the disclosed versions shows that they did not exist in this form on 17 September 2023. They were modified within BDOPC.raw at some point between 17 September and 19 September 2023. This was done with the computer clock set back to 2007, in order to backdate the document. [PM46 [111 – 117] H/278/38] 331. The modifications made included: 331.1. In respect of {ID_004722}, altering the dates of articles referred to, respectively from “2009” to “2006”, and from “2016” to “?” [PM46 [112] H/278/39]. 331.2. Removing lines of the document relating to the previously-cited papers from 2009 and 2016 (while leaving blank lines in their place) [PM46 [113] H/278/39]. 331.3. In respect of {ID_004723}, deleting lines referring to previously-cited articles dating from after 2007 (while leaving blank lines in their place) [PM46 [117-118] H/278/41]. 331.4. Altering the metadata of the documents such that they appeared to be created earlier than they were [PM46 [111 and 119] H/278/38]. 332. The documents were sourced from BDOPC.raw. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. These documents were added by the Manipulation User. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 333. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, contrary to fact. 334. The further effect of tampering is to lend support to Dr Wright’s new position that the Bitcoin White Paper was created in LaTeX. That story is a recent product of Dr Wright’s change in his account. 335. These documents were added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. the section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 336. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to these documents: 336.1. {ID_004722} is said to be one of Dr Wright’s “LaTeX files which, when compiled, generate draft articles under the pseudonym “Satoshi” or “Satoshi Nakamoto” relating to concepts later used in the Bitcoin White Paper.” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/3] 336.2. {ID_004722} is said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because it is “a LaTeX file coding for an article titled “Predicates in Quorum Systems”, which discusses concepts that underpin the technology of Bitcoin, such as the use of quorum systems to provide security in distributed systems. The author of the paper is stated to be “Satoshi” and the article bears the date 30 August 2006.” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/3] 336.3. {ID_004723} is said to be “a version of the “Predicates in Quorum Systems” paper at {ID_004722}, but listing Dr Wright as the author rather than “Satoshi”. ” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/6] 337. The documents were not disclosed at the proper time. They were disclosed instead from the BDOPC.raw image. BDOPC.raw is not a reliable source because it has been manipulated by Dr Wright. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 338. Dr Wright claimed, as set out above, that these were planted documents by Mr AgerHanssen or someone associated with him. {Day5/86:14} He also rejected the use of ChatGPT. 339. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 339.1. If the BDOPC.raw is accepted as being forged, it follows that documents on it should be treated as being forged unless they are documents which Mr Madden says are original to the image that was taken in October 2007. 339.2. The story about these being planted by someone is addressed in earlier examples in this Schedule. 339.3. The differences between the InfoDef09.raw and the versions subsequently disclosed and relied upon showed that the changes were to change tenses from the deleted version (which talked about Bitcoin in the past tense) to the future tense in the disclosed versions. This is consistent with the documents being edited to support his case. 339.4. The deleted earlier versions also contained references to papers post-dating the purported 2007 date, such as ‘Xia et Al’ (2016). All such references were deleted and in the disclosed version replaced by a ‘?’ – clearly to indicate that a reference needed to be added. The evident reason that these, and only these, references were removed, is to remove what would otherwise have been obvious indications that the document post-dated 2007. 339.5. It is clear that Dr Wright did use ChatGPT and these documents included classic indicia of how ChatGPT formats references (set out above). 339.6. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_0004722 and ID_004723 were manipulated {Q/6/5}. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 19 of 42. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part of this filing here . This part is 19 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 17. “LPA.tex” and “LP1.tex” {ID_004722} {PTR-F/79/1} and {ID_004723} {PTRF/80/1} 328. These are two LaTeX source documents presented as if they are precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper. The first presents as an article with Satoshi named as author, while the second presents as a version of the same article with Dr Wright named as author. Each addresses quorum systems, a subject which Dr Wright now maintains influenced his development of Bitcoin. By their presence in BDOPC.raw, the documents purport to pre-date 31 October 2007. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 329. These documents are among the 71 New Reliance Documents that were inserted into the BDO Drive by the editing process and which the parties’ experts agree were manipulated [Madden / Lynch1 [12] Q/6/5]. 330. The section on BDOPC.raw above is repeated. Comparing the deleted versions of these documents to the disclosed versions shows that they did not exist in this form on 17 September 2023. They were modified within BDOPC.raw at some point between 17 September and 19 September 2023. This was done with the computer clock set back to 2007, in order to backdate the document. [PM46 [111 – 117] H/278/38] 331. The modifications made included: 331.1. In respect of {ID_004722}, altering the dates of articles referred to, respectively from “2009” to “2006”, and from “2016” to “?” [PM46 [112] H/278/39]. 331.2. Removing lines of the document relating to the previously-cited papers from 2009 and 2016 (while leaving blank lines in their place) [PM46 [113] H/278/39]. 331.3. In respect of {ID_004723}, deleting lines referring to previously-cited articles dating from after 2007 (while leaving blank lines in their place) [PM46 [117-118] H/278/41]. 331.4. Altering the metadata of the documents such that they appeared to be created earlier than they were [PM46 [111 and 119] H/278/38]. 332. The documents were sourced from BDOPC.raw. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. These documents were added by the Manipulation User. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 333. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, contrary to fact. 334. The further effect of tampering is to lend support to Dr Wright’s new position that the Bitcoin White Paper was created in LaTeX. That story is a recent product of Dr Wright’s change in his account. 335. These documents were added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. the section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 336. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to these documents: 336.1. {ID_004722} is said to be one of Dr Wright’s “LaTeX files which, when compiled, generate draft articles under the pseudonym “Satoshi” or “Satoshi Nakamoto” relating to concepts later used in the Bitcoin White Paper.” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/3] “LaTeX files which, when compiled, generate draft articles under the pseudonym “Satoshi” or “Satoshi Nakamoto” relating to concepts later used in the Bitcoin White Paper.” 336.2. {ID_004722} is said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because it is “a LaTeX file coding for an article titled “Predicates in Quorum Systems”, which discusses concepts that underpin the technology of Bitcoin, such as the use of quorum systems to provide security in distributed systems. The author of the paper is stated to be “Satoshi” and the article bears the date 30 August 2006.” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/3] “Predicates in Quorum Systems”, which discusses concepts that underpin the technology of Bitcoin, such as the use of quorum systems to provide security in distributed systems. The author of the paper is stated to be “Satoshi” and the article bears the date 30 August 2006.” 336.3. {ID_004723} is said to be “a version of the “Predicates in Quorum Systems” paper at {ID_004722}, but listing Dr Wright as the author rather than “Satoshi”. ” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/6] “Predicates in Quorum Systems” “Satoshi”. 337. The documents were not disclosed at the proper time. They were disclosed instead from the BDOPC.raw image. BDOPC.raw is not a reliable source because it has been manipulated by Dr Wright. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 338. Dr Wright claimed, as set out above, that these were planted documents by Mr AgerHanssen or someone associated with him. {Day5/86:14} He also rejected the use of ChatGPT. 339. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 339.1. If the BDOPC.raw is accepted as being forged, it follows that documents on it should be treated as being forged unless they are documents which Mr Madden says are original to the image that was taken in October 2007. 339.2. The story about these being planted by someone is addressed in earlier examples in this Schedule. 339.3. The differences between the InfoDef09.raw and the versions subsequently disclosed and relied upon showed that the changes were to change tenses from the deleted version (which talked about Bitcoin in the past tense) to the future tense in the disclosed versions. This is consistent with the documents being edited to support his case. 339.4. The deleted earlier versions also contained references to papers post-dating the purported 2007 date, such as ‘Xia et Al’ (2016). All such references were deleted and in the disclosed version replaced by a ‘?’ – clearly to indicate that a reference needed to be added. The evident reason that these, and only these, references were removed, is to remove what would otherwise have been obvious indications that the document post-dated 2007. 339.5. It is clear that Dr Wright did use ChatGPT and these documents included classic indicia of how ChatGPT formats references (set out above). 339.6. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_0004722 and ID_004723 were manipulated {Q/6/5}. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. judiciary.uk judiciary.uk

Satoshi or Sham? The Dubious Nature of Craig Wright's LaTeX Documents

COPA Claims Craig Wright’s LaTeX Documents on Bitcoin Concepts are Fabricated

COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 17 of 42. 15. “Internal Controls…Backend Operations” {ID_004733} {PTR-F/90/1} 298. The is an RTF file titled “Internal Controls and Immutable Logging in Auditing Backend Operations of Messaging Systems.rtf”. Dr Wright has relied upon it as showing interest in / research on the concept of immutable logging which he claims influenced his development of Bitcoin. By its presence in BDOPC.raw, the document purports to predate 31 October 2007. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 299. This document is among the 71 New Reliance Documents that were inserted into the BDO Drive by the editing process and which the parties’ experts agree were manipulated [Madden / Lynch1 [12] Q/6/5]. 300. The document has been backdated. It is a Rich Text File created with the editor version Riched20.dll v10.0.19041. That version of Riched20 is the version associated with the May 2020 update of Windows 10. [Madden3 [86-91] G/5/34] [PM46 [149] H/278/53] 301. The section on BDOPC.raw above is repeated. Comparing the deleted version of this document to the disclosed version shows that this document did not exist in this form on 17 September 2023. It was modified within BDOPC.raw at some point between 17 September and 19 September 2023. This was done with the computer clock set back to 2007, in order to backdate the document. 302. The modifications included: 302.1. altering the metadata of the file to make it appear to have been created earlier than it actually was [PM46 [146]]; and 302.2. deleting a reference to “The Data Protection Act 2018” and replacing it with the words “data protection law globally” [PM46 [147] H/278/52]. 303. The Data Protection Act 2018 did not exist in 2007. 304. The document was sourced from BDOPC.raw. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 305. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, contrary to fact. 306. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. Paragraph 45 of the section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 307. The document was not disclosed at the proper time. It was disclosed instead from the BDOPC.raw image. BDOPC.raw is not a reliable source because it has been manipulated by Dr Wright. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 308. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to this document: 308.1. It is said to be among Dr Wright’s “Notes, drafts and articles addressing technical concepts that underpin the concepts developed in the Bitcoin White Paper" [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/4] 308.2. It is said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because it is a “paper titled “Internal Controls and Immutable Logging in Auditing Backend Operations of Messaging Systems”. The concept of immutable logging discussed in this paper connect Dr Wright’s earlier research on hash chains with the blockchain technology that underpins Bitcoin.” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/7] (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 309. Dr Wright again claimed that the BDO Drive had been hacked, which he said explained the fact that the document was authored in a version of Window Text Editor dating from 2020. In relation to the deletions between the versions disclosed as the reliance document and the version on InfoDef09.raw, Dr Wright claimed that the removal of “Data Protection Act 2018” from the precursor document on InfoDef09.raw to be replaced by “data protection law globally…” arose because it referred to Sarbanes-Oxley in America. He disputed that this change showed the direction of editing: {Day5/100:8} and following. 310. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 310.1. If the BDOPC.raw is accepted as being forged, it follows that documents on it should be treated as being forged unless they are documents which Mr Madden says are original to the image that was taken in October 2007. 310.2. The removal of “Data Protection Act 2018” from what was plainly the precursor document on InfoDef09.raw, to be replaced by “data protection law globally…”, clearly indicates a document which had been written at a later date being changed to remove what would be anachronisms. 310.3. Dr Wright’s excuse about someone using Word to create a document and then changing the format does not make any sense in the circumstances or explain the irregularities. 310.4. The use of a version of Windows Text Editor dating from 2020 shows these documents were not contemporaneous to the alleged time capsule. 310.5. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_000473 was manipulated: {Q/6/5}. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 17 of 42. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part of this filing here . This part is 17 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 15. “Internal Controls…Backend Operations” {ID_004733} {PTR-F/90/1} 298. The is an RTF file titled “Internal Controls and Immutable Logging in Auditing Backend Operations of Messaging Systems.rtf”. Dr Wright has relied upon it as showing interest in / research on the concept of immutable logging which he claims influenced his development of Bitcoin. By its presence in BDOPC.raw, the document purports to predate 31 October 2007. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 299. This document is among the 71 New Reliance Documents that were inserted into the BDO Drive by the editing process and which the parties’ experts agree were manipulated [Madden / Lynch1 [12] Q/6/5]. 300. The document has been backdated. It is a Rich Text File created with the editor version Riched20.dll v10.0.19041. That version of Riched20 is the version associated with the May 2020 update of Windows 10. [Madden3 [86-91] G/5/34] [PM46 [149] H/278/53] 301. The section on BDOPC.raw above is repeated. Comparing the deleted version of this document to the disclosed version shows that this document did not exist in this form on 17 September 2023. It was modified within BDOPC.raw at some point between 17 September and 19 September 2023. This was done with the computer clock set back to 2007, in order to backdate the document. 302. The modifications included: 302.1. altering the metadata of the file to make it appear to have been created earlier than it actually was [PM46 [146]]; and 302.2. deleting a reference to “The Data Protection Act 2018” and replacing it with the words “data protection law globally” [PM46 [147] H/278/52]. 303. The Data Protection Act 2018 did not exist in 2007. 304. The document was sourced from BDOPC.raw. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 305. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, contrary to fact. 306. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. Paragraph 45 of the section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 307. The document was not disclosed at the proper time. It was disclosed instead from the BDOPC.raw image. BDOPC.raw is not a reliable source because it has been manipulated by Dr Wright. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 308. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to this document: 308.1. It is said to be among Dr Wright’s “Notes, drafts and articles addressing technical concepts that underpin the concepts developed in the Bitcoin White Paper" [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/4] “Notes, drafts and articles addressing technical concepts that underpin the concepts developed in the Bitcoin White Paper" 308.2. It is said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because it is a “paper titled “Internal Controls and Immutable Logging in Auditing Backend Operations of Messaging Systems”. The concept of immutable logging discussed in this paper connect Dr Wright’s earlier research on hash chains with the blockchain technology that underpins Bitcoin.” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/7] “paper titled “Internal Controls and Immutable Logging in Auditing Backend Operations of Messaging Systems”. The concept of immutable logging discussed in this paper connect Dr Wright’s earlier research on hash chains with the blockchain technology that underpins Bitcoin.” (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 309. Dr Wright again claimed that the BDO Drive had been hacked, which he said explained the fact that the document was authored in a version of Window Text Editor dating from 2020. In relation to the deletions between the versions disclosed as the reliance document and the version on InfoDef09.raw, Dr Wright claimed that the removal of “Data Protection Act 2018” from the precursor document on InfoDef09.raw to be replaced by “data protection law globally…” arose because it referred to Sarbanes-Oxley in America. He disputed that this change showed the direction of editing: {Day5/100:8} and following. 310. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 310.1. If the BDOPC.raw is accepted as being forged, it follows that documents on it should be treated as being forged unless they are documents which Mr Madden says are original to the image that was taken in October 2007. 310.2. The removal of “Data Protection Act 2018” from what was plainly the precursor document on InfoDef09.raw, to be replaced by “data protection law globally…”, clearly indicates a document which had been written at a later date being changed to remove what would be anachronisms. 310.3. Dr Wright’s excuse about someone using Word to create a document and then changing the format does not make any sense in the circumstances or explain the irregularities. 310.4. The use of a version of Windows Text Editor dating from 2020 shows these documents were not contemporaneous to the alleged time capsule. 310.5. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_000473 was manipulated: {Q/6/5}. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. judiciary.uk judiciary.uk

Discrepancies Found in Craig Wright’s Document on Immutable Logging: COPA Alleges Tampering

Barchester Towers by Anthony Trollope is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book . Dr. and Mrs. Proudie here Dr. and Mrs. Proudie This narrative is supposed to commence immediately after the installation of Dr. Proudie. I will not describe the ceremony, as I do not precisely understand its nature. I am ignorant whether a bishop be chaired like a member of Parliament, or carried in a gilt coach like a lord mayor, or sworn like a justice of peace, or introduced like a peer to the upper house, or led between two brethren like a knight of the garter; but I do know that everything was properly done, and that nothing fit or becoming to a young bishop was omitted on the occasion. Dr. Proudie was not the man to allow anything to be omitted that might be becoming to his new dignity. He understood well the value of forms, and knew that the due observance of rank could not be maintained unless the exterior trappings belonging to it were held in proper esteem. He was a man born to move in high circles; at least so he thought himself, and circumstances had certainly sustained him in this view. He was the nephew of an Irish baron by his mother's side, and his wife was the niece of a Scotch earl. He had for years held some clerical office appertaining to courtly matters, which had enabled him to live in London, and to entrust his parish to his curate. He had been preacher to the royal beefeaters, curator of theological manuscripts in the Ecclesiastical Courts, chaplain to the Queen's yeomanry guard, and almoner to his Royal Highness the Prince of Rappe-Blankenberg. His residence in the metropolis, rendered necessary by duties thus entrusted to him, his high connexions, and the peculiar talents and nature of the man, recommended him to persons in power, and Dr. Proudie became known as a useful and rising clergyman. Some few years since, even within the memory of many who are not yet willing to call themselves old, a liberal clergyman was a person not frequently to be met. Sydney Smith was such and was looked on as little better than an infidel; a few others also might be named, but they were and were regarded with doubt and distrust by their brethren. No man was so surely a Tory as a country rector—nowhere were the powers that be so cherished as at Oxford. rarae aves When, however, Dr. Whately was made an archbishop, and Dr. Hampden some years afterwards regius professor, many wise divines saw that a change was taking place in men's minds, and that more liberal ideas would henceforward be suitable to the priests as well as to the laity. Clergymen began to be heard of who had ceased to anathematize papists on the one hand, or vilify dissenters on the other. It appeared clear that High Church principles, as they are called, were no longer to be surest claims to promotion with at any rate one section of statesmen, and Dr. Proudie was one among those who early in life adapted himself to the views held by the Whigs on most theological and religious subjects. He bore with the idolatry of Rome, tolerated even the infidelity of Socinianism, and was hand and glove with the Presbyterian Synods of Scotland and Ulster. Such a man at such a time was found to be useful, and Dr. Proudie's name began to appear in the newspapers. He was made one of a commission who went over to Ireland to arrange matters preparative to the working of the national board; he became honorary secretary to another commission nominated to inquire into the revenues of cathedral chapters; he had had something to do with both the and the Maynooth grant. regium donum It must not on this account be taken as proved that Dr. Proudie was a man of great mental powers, or even of much capacity for business, for such qualities had not been required in him. In the arrangement of those church reforms with which he was connected, the ideas and original conception of the work to be done were generally furnished by the liberal statesmen of the day, and the labour of the details was borne by officials of a lower rank. It was, however, thought expedient that the name of some clergyman should appear in such matters, and as Dr. Proudie had become known as a tolerating divine, great use of this sort was made of his name. If he did not do much active good, he never did any harm; he was amenable to those who were really in authority and, at the sittings of the various boards to which he belonged, maintained a kind of dignity which had its value. He was certainly possessed of sufficient tact to answer the purpose for which he was required without making himself troublesome; but it must not therefore be surmised that he doubted his own power, or failed to believe that he could himself take a high part in high affairs when his own turn came. He was biding his time, and patiently looking forward to the days when he himself would sit authoritative at some board, and talk and direct, and rule the roost, while lesser stars sat round and obeyed, as he had so well accustomed himself to do. His reward and his time had now come. He was selected for the vacant bishopric and, on the next vacancy which might occur in any diocese, would take his place in the House of Lords, prepared to give not a silent vote in all matters concerning the weal of the church establishment. Toleration was to be the basis on which he was to fight his battles, and in the honest courage of his heart he thought no evil would come to him in encountering even such foes as his brethren of Exeter and Oxford. Dr. Proudie was an ambitious man, and before he was well consecrated Bishop of Barchester, he had begun to look up to archiepiscopal splendour, and the glories of Lambeth, or at any rate of Bishopsthorpe. He was comparatively young, and had, as he fondly flattered himself, been selected as possessing such gifts, natural and acquired, as must be sure to recommend him to a yet higher notice, now that a higher sphere was opened to him. Dr. Proudie was, therefore, quite prepared to take a conspicuous part in all theological affairs appertaining to these realms; and having such views, by no means intended to bury himself at Barchester as his predecessor had done. No! London should still be his ground: a comfortable mansion in a provincial city might be well enough for the dead months of the year. Indeed, Dr. Proudie had always felt it necessary to his position to retire from London when other great and fashionable people did so; but London should still be his fixed residence, and it was in London that he resolved to exercise that hospitality so peculiarly recommended to all bishops by St. Paul. How otherwise could he keep himself before the world? How else give to the government, in matters theological, the full benefit of his weight and talents? This resolution was no doubt a salutary one as regarded the world at large, but was not likely to make him popular either with the clergy or people of Barchester. Dr. Grantly had always lived there—in truth, it was hard for a bishop to be popular after Dr. Grantly. His income had averaged £9,000 a year; his successor was to be rigidly limited to £5,000. He had but one child on whom to spend his money; Dr. Proudie had seven or eight. He had been a man of few personal expenses, and they had been confined to the tastes of a moderate gentleman; but Dr. Proudie had to maintain a position in fashionable society, and had that to do with comparatively small means. Dr. Grantly had certainly kept his carriage as became a bishop, but his carriage, horses, and coachman, though they did very well for Barchester, would have been almost ridiculous at Westminster. Mrs. Proudie determined that her husband's equipage should not shame her, and things on which Mrs. Proudie resolved were generally accomplished. From all this it was likely to result that Dr. Proudie would not spend much money at Barchester, whereas his predecessor had dealt with the tradesmen of the city in a manner very much to their satisfaction. The Grantlys, father and son, had spent their money like gentlemen, but it soon became whispered in Barchester that Dr. Proudie was not unacquainted with those prudent devices by which the utmost show of wealth is produced from limited means. In person Dr. Proudie is a good-looking man; spruce and dapper, and very tidy. He is somewhat below middle height, being about five feet four; but he makes up for the inches which he wants by the dignity with which he carries those which he has. It is no fault of his own if he has not a commanding eye, for he studies hard to assume it. His features are well formed, though perhaps the sharpness of his nose may give to his face in the eyes of some people an air of insignificance. If so, it is greatly redeemed by his mouth and chin, of which he is justly proud. Dr. Proudie may well be said to have been a fortunate man, for he was not born to wealth, and he is now Bishop of Barchester; nevertheless, he has his cares. He has a large family, of whom the three eldest are daughters, now all grown up and fit for fashionable life;—and he has a wife. It is not my intention to breathe a word against the character of Mrs. Proudie, but still I cannot think that with all her virtues she adds much to her husband's happiness. The truth is that in matters domestic she rules supreme over her titular lord, and rules with a rod of iron. Nor is this all. Things domestic Dr. Proudie might have abandoned to her, if not voluntarily, yet willingly. But Mrs. Proudie is not satisfied with such home dominion, and stretches her power over all his movements, and will not even abstain from things spiritual. In fact, the bishop is hen-pecked. The archdeacon's wife, in her happy home at Plumstead, knows how to assume the full privileges of her rank and express her own mind in becoming tone and place. But Mrs. Grantly's sway, if sway she has, is easy and beneficent. She never shames her husband; before the world she is a pattern of obedience; her voice is never loud, nor her looks sharp: doubtless she values power, and has not unsuccessfully striven to acquire it; but she knows what should be the limits of a woman's rule. Not so Mrs. Proudie. This lady is habitually authoritative to all, but to her poor husband she is despotic. Successful as has been his career in the eyes of the world, it would seem that in the eyes of his wife he is never right. All hope of defending himself has long passed from him; indeed he rarely even attempts self-justification, and is aware that submission produces the nearest approach to peace which his own house can ever attain. Mrs. Proudie has not been able to sit at the boards and committees to which her husband has been called by the State, nor, as he often reflects, can she make her voice heard in the House of Lords. It may be that she will refuse to him permission to attend to this branch of a bishop's duties; it may be that she will insist on his close attendance to his own closet. He has never whispered a word on the subject to living ears, but he has already made his fixed resolve. Should such attempt be made he will rebel. Dogs have turned against their masters, and even Neapolitans against their rulers, when oppression has been too severe. And Dr. Proudie feels within himself that if the cord be drawn too tight, he also can muster courage and resist. The state of vassalage in which our bishop has been kept by his wife has not tended to exalt his character in the eyes of his daughters, who assume in addressing their father too much of that authority which is not properly belonging, at any rate, to them. They are, on the whole, fine engaging young ladies. They are tall and robust like their mother, whose high cheek-bones, and—we may say auburn hair they all inherit. They think somewhat too much of their grand-uncles, who have not hitherto returned the compliment by thinking much of them. But now that their father is a bishop, it is probable that family ties will be drawn closer. Considering their connexion with the church, they entertain but few prejudices against the pleasures of the world, and have certainly not distressed their parents, as too many English girls have lately done, by any enthusiastic wish to devote themselves to the seclusion of a Protestant nunnery. Dr. Proudie's sons are still at school. One other marked peculiarity in the character of the bishop's wife must be mentioned. Though not averse to the society and manners of the world, she is in her own way a religious woman; and the form in which this tendency shows itself in her is by a strict observance of Sabbatarian rule. Dissipation and low dresses during the week are, under her control, atoned for by three services, an evening sermon read by herself, and a perfect abstinence from any cheering employment on the Sunday. Unfortunately for those under her roof to whom the dissipation and low dresses are not extended, her servants namely and her husband, the compensating strictness of the Sabbath includes all. Woe betide the recreant housemaid who is found to have been listening to the honey of a sweetheart in the Regent's park instead of the soul-stirring evening discourse of Mr. Slope. Not only is she sent adrift, but she is so sent with a character which leaves her little hope of a decent place. Woe betide the six-foot hero who escorts Mrs. Proudie to her pew in red plush breeches, if he slips away to the neighbouring beer-shop, instead of falling into the back seat appropriated to his use. Mrs. Proudie has the eyes of Argus for such offenders. Occasional drunkenness in the week may be overlooked, for six feet on low wages are hardly to be procured if the morals are always kept at a high pitch, but not even for grandeur or economy will Mrs. Proudie forgive a desecration of the Sabbath. In such matters Mrs. Proudie allows herself to be often guided by that eloquent preacher, the Rev. Mr. Slope, and as Dr. Proudie is guided by his wife, it necessarily follows that the eminent man we have named has obtained a good deal of control over Dr. Proudie in matters concerning religion. Mr. Slope's only preferment has hitherto been that of reader and preacher in a London district church; and on the consecration of his friend the new bishop, he readily gave this up to undertake the onerous but congenial duties of domestic chaplain to his lordship. Mr. Slope, however, on his first introduction must not be brought before the public at the tail of a chapter. About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books. This book is part of the public domain. Anthony Trollope (2002). Barchester Towers. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved October 2022 https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/3409/pg3409-images.html This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at , located at . www.gutenberg.org https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html

Dr. and Mrs. Proudie

Everyone who’s reading this is out there grindin', always pushing your limits and searching for those game-changing moves to take your business to the next level. You're all about innovation, opportunity, and delivering that value to your customers, team, and stakeholders. But hold up. It feels like it’s all uphill. You might be feeling like your business isn't quite running the way you know it should/could be running. It’s times like these we need to pause and get real and ask ourselves, "Am I the one holding it back?" One of the biggest roadblocks I see is this: a lack of true, real, leadership. Leadership, is the art of influencing, guiding, and hyping up others to build something together. It's about setting a vision, prioritizing, sparking that fire, and building trust. Small startup or global powerhouse, it doesn't matter—leadership is the key to success. Without it, your business ain't gonna thrive, innovate, or hold its own in this fast-paced world. I had this , and her insights on leadership and company culture got me seriously inspired. It's a topic that needs more attention, so we're diving in, folks. amazing conversation with Dr. Kimberly Janson In this piece, we're gonna break down what makes a great leader, how to level up your leadership skills, and how to skyrocket your business to new heights. Ready? Let's get it! What is Leadership? This subject's been picked apart for centuries, but listen up, it's not just about calling the shots or making choices. Leadership is about influencing, guiding, and motivating your squad to crush those shared goals. It's a mix of traits, skills, and actions that let you fire up and steer your team, company, or community to win big. It's all about crafting a vision, setting priorities, sparking enthusiasm, and building trust. To be a leader that people will rally behind, you gotta clearly express your vision and goals, communicate like a pro, and be the driving force that empowers and inspires your team to take action. And let's be real, you also need the guts to make hard calls, adapt to change on the fly, and tackle obstacles like a boss. Seems like a tall order? Yeah, it is. That's why leadership can be such a tricky and touchy subject for many entrepreneurs. A lot of them like to think they're born "natural leaders," but they don't invest time in self-reflection or evaluating their leadership effectiveness. This is a critical exercise, because top-notch leadership can mean the difference between epic success and crashing and burning. Why Leadership Is Everything Let me break it down for you: You're the trailblazer, the goal-setter, the decision-maker, and the team motivator. leadership is the lifeblood of your entire operation. Whether you're a solopreneur, hustling in a startup, or running a corporate giant, there are four key reasons why you need to be a top-tier leader. Vision Crafting Laying out the vision is everything. You gotta paint that bright, shiny future and make sure your team is pumped to chase it. A clear, electrifying vision keeps your crew focused, amped, and all-in. Your vision should be bold, actionable, and meaningful. It's gotta vibe with your values, purpose, and mission, and resonate with your team, customers, and stakeholders. A killer vision builds a killer culture and gives everyone a sense of belonging and purpose. Staying Competitive Strong leadership keeps you ahead of the pack. A badass leader can lay down crystal-clear goals and communicate like a pro so everyone's on the same wavelength, grinding together towards those targets. This creates a culture where innovation, collaboration, and levelling up are the norm – all crucial for staying at the top of your game. The Talent Attractor Great leadership is a talent magnet. People wanna work for leaders who inspire, got their back, and are all about helping them shine. A true leader creates a positive, empowering atmosphere where employees feel valued, respected, and driven to give their best. This builds a loyal, committed team that's key to holding onto top talent and ensuring long-term success. Growth and Victory Last but not least, true, real, next-level leadership fuels growth and victory. A skilled leader makes the tough calls, rolls with the punches, and smashes through obstacles, helping their team and company unlock their full potential. They fire up and motivate their team to take action and build a culture of accountability where everyone delivers the results. Not Everyone's Born Ready to Lead Becoming a real leader isn't an overnight deal. It takes time, effort, and a dedication to personal growth. We all want to think we've got the confidence, charisma, and charm to lead, but the truth is, most of us need to work at it daily. when stepping into a leadership role. I've narrowed down a few key things to think about: There's a ton to consider Your personality influences your leadership style, communication skills, and problem-solving approach. Knowing your personality, strengths, and weaknesses helps you interact better with others and identify areas to improve. Personality Type: Your energy impacts your ability to lead. Great leaders need high energy, enthusiasm, and positivity to inspire and motivate their team. Prioritise your physical and mental health and maintain a solid work-life balance. Energy Levels: Communication is the backbone of leadership. Effectively articulating your vision and goals is vital. Good leaders listen actively, build rapport, and provide feedback. Enhance your communication skills to build trust, resolve conflicts, and make better decisions. Communication Skills: Knowing your motivation style is key. Some people thrive on rewards, while others need recognition, feedback, or growth opportunities. Understand your motivators and your team's to inspire, engage, and retain them. Motivation Style: Your ability to learn fast from experiences, failures, and successes is a game-changer. Being learning agile means adapting quickly to new info, changing direction, and pivoting when needed. Recognize patterns, make connections, and apply new knowledge in real-world situations. Agile leaders grow continuously and inspire their team to do the same.. Learning Agility: How to Become The Most Effective Leader Whether you're leading a duo or a two-hundred-strong crew. Leading ain't a one-stop shop - , where you gotta keep levelling up and learning the ropes. Ready to become a badass leader? Here's what you need to do to actually make it happen (we’re taking it a step deeper than just personality) it's a never-ending hustle Talk the Talk Clear communication is the backbone of real leadership. Make sure everyone on your team knows the score and what they gotta bring to the table. Lay out your vision, your goals, and your expectations, and invite your crew to be real with you. And don't forget to give feedback that's on-point and respectful. Get Emotionally Woke Emotional intelligence ain't just a buzzword, it's the key to unlocking your leadership potential. Be in tune with your own feelings and those of your team. Show you care, celebrate their wins, and you'll earn their trust and loyalty. Walk the Walk You're the head honcho, so your actions gotta be louder than your words. Be the real deal: honest, ethical, and transparent. Get your hands dirty, and your team will see you're all in for their success. That's how you create a kickass work culture. Ignite That Collab and Innovation Fire To really kill it in the business world, you gotta think outside the box. Spark that innovative spirit by getting your team to brainstorm, challenge each other, and vibe together. Embrace different perspectives and be open to new ideas, no matter how wild they seem. Level Up with a Growth Mindset To be a real leader, you gotta keep growing and evolving. In business, if you're not moving forward, you're going backwards. So, embrace that growth mindset and never stop learning. Encourage your team to do the same, and watch your empire rise. Be a Change Chameleon The business world's always shifting, so you gotta be agile and open-minded. Flexibility is the name of the game. Adaptability is your secret weapon for staying ahead and crushing the competition. Wrap-Up For way too long, leadership has been treated like some vague art form, undervalued and overlooked. People haven't been taught the skills they need to be a boss leader, and it's time to shake things up. Let's kick that old-school mindset to the curb and shed some light on what it really means to be a kickass leader. We're talking a total game-changer, where we define, measure, and develop leadership potential in a way that's deliberate and consistent. Being an A+ leader is all about knowing who you are, connecting and communicating with your team like a pro, expanding your mindset, and staying agile. Level up these skills, and I promise you, your business will soar to new heights! Wanna dig deeper into this and score some killer leadership tips? Check out my in-depth chat with . Dr. Janson That's all for now, folks. Catch you next week with more success stories to inspire your journey! If you enjoyed this article, I’d love to hear from you. Reply to this or tweet at me and I'll do my best to get back to everyone! email @ScottDClary The lead image for this article was generated by HackerNoon's via the prompt "a leader in front of an army". AI Image Generator

One of the Biggest Roadblocks is a Lack of True, Real, Leadership

The Ray of Madness

El rayo de la locura

Le rayon de la folie

पागलपन की किरण

レイ・オブ・マッドネス

O Raio da Loucura

疯狂之光

Wikipedia Sucks: There's a Solution by Wiki’s Real Daddy

The Wall Street Journal recently noted that the United States “will soon spend close to 20% of its GDP” on healthcare. While it might not be possible to address the rising costs of healthcare in the immediate future, there are steps that can be taken to address issues of customer service and efficiency to improve the overall healthcare experience, while ensuring the protection of customer privacy. Halamka, editor-in-chief of ‘Blockchain in Healthcare Today’, sees many possibilities for blockchain to improve the healthcare industry: Medical records storage and interoperability. . Consent management User verification (KYC). Improve efficiency of processes In short, he thinks blockchain can make healthcare less time consuming and less costly. Let’s take a look at the current state of blockchain for healthcare. 1. Solve.Care is an innovative healthcare administration platform that empowers patients, employers, physicians, healthcare organizations and insurance companies such that care delivery can be more efficient, effective and affordable. The platform is designed to decentralize processes and synchronize all parties using the power of distributed ledgers and intelligent process automation. Solve.Care The company launched its Care.Wallet for Physician to allow the providers of the Network to track the successes and their overall score while receiving corresponding rewards according to the Provider Rewards Program. The value-based payments happen via Care.Coin, thus making Solve.Care the first companies to implement digital currency and blockchain technology for value-based payments in the conservative US healthcare industry. 2. Dentacoin Dentacoin ( DCN ) is a blockchain solution for the global dental industry. It is developing a new dental ecosystem with the following goals: Make preventive dental care affordable to people with lower costs and/or no private insurances — through Dentacoin Assurance. Help people improve their oral hygiene habits through a dedicated app — Dentacare. Deliver the infrastructure for trusted and detailed patient feedback for dentists to improve upon — Dentacoin Trusted Reviews; Secure and ease all payments while reducing transaction costs through an industry-specific cryptocurrency (Dentacoin) and the Dentacoin Wallet dApp. 3. Healthereum Healthereum is a rewards and loyalty platform for patients while targeting microlevel inefficiencies in provider-patient encounters. The goals are to improve patient accountability, broaden care delivery, and streamline interactions with insurers. While rewarding patients who are engaged with their healthcare, simultaneously addresses the critical cost aspects of a full-cycle patient encounter by improving the no-show rate, increasing acquisition of survey care data, lowering insurance claim denials, and facilitating better ongoing patient messaging. Healthereum Through the Healthereum Life Portfolio, or HELIO, and its Syndicate, the suite of applications is accessible by the patients and care providers. The products are currently in the testing phase. 4. Medibloc MediBloc is a decentralized app platform that uses the Ethereum. It gives patients control over their medical history and data and chooses who gets access to it. Currently, people have to undergo the same check-ups and provide all the details when visiting a new doctor. With MediBloc, all that information could be provided directly and save on precious time and resources and allow for better patient care and treatment. 5. Doc.AI Doc.AI believes that visiting a doctor in person is for most of the cases a waste of your time. Therefore, it is looking to combine deep learning, blockchain and AI to bring medical knowledge to people’s smartphones. The goal is to have natural language conversations with AI doctors via their smartphone. Doc.AI states that most of the simple illnesses like a cold can be settled via an AI doctor. 6. Chronicled The San Francisco-based tech company applies blockchain technology combined with IoT systems to supply chains to help improve traceability and accountability. It is crucial in industries such as pharma, precious metals or other high-value commodities. In case of time- and temperature sensitive healthcare products such as various vaccines, safe and timely delivery is crucial. Blockchain solutions could help speed up logistics, minimize discrepancies, create potential cost savings from streamlined processes, improve product visibility, and add transparency as products travel through the pharma supply chain. 7. Collectly Collectly has developed software that integrates with any existing Electronic Health Record system so it can bill patients digitally or even start payment plans. The idea is to automate the whole payment flow and make it easy to incorporate into their existing system. Also, the platform takes care of collecting debts by sending patients a notification about their due payment. has engaged with more than 60,000 patients each month and collected more than $12 million of unpaid invoices for more than 2,500 providers. It has increased the collection rate on patient bills from an industry average of 8–12%, depending on the type of practice, to 50–75%, making collections a remarkable 500% more efficient. Collectly 8. Iryo Iryo says it is creating a global and participatory healthcare ecosystem. The ambitious start-up is building an open-sourced OpenEHR platform with tremendous efforts and zero-knowledge data repository. The latter ensures that sensitive medical data will remain secure and utterly impervious to cybersecurity breaches, including state-sponsored attacks. The overall goal of Iryo is to build an appropriate platform for keeping health records unified. Instead of all kinds of medical data from various providers stored in different formats and scattered across different systems, Iryo’s solution promises to store data securely and allow patients to share their medical history anywhere in the world. 9. Kalibrate Blockchain — FormDrop SDK The FormDrop app allows patients to electronically fill out and submit forms to healthcare providers using their personal smartphones, with no need for clipboards, paper forms, or electronic tablets. Patients can also use FormDrop to index their patient ID’s and personal health information on the Universal Patient Index as well as to authorize access to that information by healthcare providers — whether or not those providers have adopted the Universal Patient Index platform. Note: The license to use FormDrop SDK is only available for a select amount of hospitals in specific industries. Conclusion There are many more healthcare-blockchain projects than the above ones that try to innovate parts of the healthcare industry. It is interesting to see how almost every project tries to improve the efficiency of at least one interaction. We can clearly conclude that the healthcare industry has problems with data storage and data transfer between parties.

Is it possible to improve healthcare with blockchain technology?

Last year I launched and asked our community what they would like to learn as part of a survey. The response was was overwhelmingly . At first I thought about creating something in the style of Uber but I eventually settled on building something that looks really close to how the native app looks. Almost a clone in some regards. My motivation was: Codename One Academy how to build an app like Uber I wanted the design to look professional and you can’t go wrong with a design from a top tier vendor People can learn a lot by understanding the decisions Uber made — I know I did If I would have built something different I might have given myself “discounts” that don’t exist in the real world I used the word clone to indicate the similarity but not to indicate a 1:1 copy. Uber is a huge and nuanced app and I had only one week to write all the relevant applicable code… My goal was to do the “hard stuff” and gloss over some of the deeper details. What I Learned? I didn’t expect to learn much but a few things really surprised me. One such thing was the heavy usage of material design on iOS in the native Uber app. E.g: Uber’s native app on iOS Notice that this looks almost identical to the Android version of the app. You have staple Android UI elements such as the floating action button, material design text entry and arrow back button… The Android version does indeed look almost identical! Historically I always thought native widgets promoted engagement through familiarity. In fact, Chen and myself used to argue about this constantly. I pushed towards a more “native widget feel” approach while Chen pushed towards a single UI for all platforms. It seems Uber sided with Chen. Uber has one UI design that is almost identical in iOS & Android. This makes sense, they can reuse the design. Have one screenshot to support both OS’s in their training materials. As long as the app looks decent and everything is still in place this is still intuitive. During the days of Android 2.x and iOS 6.x the differences between the OS’s were too big. Having a top left back button on Android would have been blasphemy... Today convergence just makes financial sense even if you don’t use a cross platform tool. Transitions are Still Different I’m not sure if they did this by design but the transitions in the Android & iOS native versions are very different from one another. The Android version uses the material design style transition although I didn’t see “hero transitions”. iOS uses cover and slide transitions. If this is on purpose it means “feel” beats “look”. I’m guessing it’s just something they didn’t care enough about but it’s hard to know. Bug Portability Here is the initial native Uber login screen on Android: Android Login Screen The same screen on iOS looks similar but has a rendering bug: Rendering Bug on the native Uber login screen In case you don’t see it look at the “Enter your mobile number” text. I’m sure Uber has a lot of QA. I’m guessing this slipped because most of them are in countries that don’t have 3 digit dial codes. The Android version (and our version) handle this well. I’m guessing it was fixed on Android because of its global appeal. Fixes made to the Android version don’t trickle into the iOS version. Some Features are Harder on Android If you run the iOS version of Uber and look at the login screen above you will see that the pattern in the background rotates. This is a great special effect that looks subtle and pleasant. That’s why I was surprised that they didn’t do it for Android…I doubt they lack engineers to implement this subtle feature. After working a bit on Android it became pretty apparent why they chose to avoid this. Android has issues in the vector graphics department. When you try to generate this path and perform the rotation effect you get the error: “OpenGLRenderer: Path too large to be rendered into a texture” The only workaround I found is to disable hardware rendering in my case by drawing onto an image surface. The point that sucks about this is that it’s really hard to know what went wrong. Rendering a path doesn’t throw an exception, it just doesn’t show. So I can’t fallback dynamically to software rendering and I’m not sure what’s wrong in the path? Coordinates out of bounds? Number of coordinates? Looking at the Android code responsible for that message didn’t help much either. Regardless . it’s a bit frustrating that in an otherwise identical UI iOS has features that are lacking in Android They Don’t Intercept SMS’s on Android The thing I love most about Android is the low level of control you get as a developer. This is a double edged sword but in some cases it beats everything else… One great example is SMS interception support. When you have an SMS activation process Android can grab the incoming SMS and skip the need to type it in. Amazingly the native Uber application doesn’t do that. They don’t use a native Android SMS activation. After reading a bit it seems that Uber got a lot of flak over the years for “too many permissions”. I think they were just concerned about a permission for making phone calls… I’m not sure if this would apply as much with API level 23 (where Android switched to permission prompts). Either way I added this functionality in our version of Uber and it makes the signup process much smoother on Android. They Portrait Locked the App This is a personal pet peeve of mine. I love apps that rotate properly to landscape and Uber blocked that. I understand why they did that. Supporting landscape would mean a lot more work as some forms like the login form I mentioned before would need a complete overhaul for landscape. The thing it says though is interesting: rather than spend manpower on doing these things. Uber would rather focus on functionality than support landscape orientation. I can respect that. I think this and all of the above show clearly that . They reduce features & bloat focusing heavily on the core functionality. Uber believes in function over form They Change a Lot I never noticed how quickly things change in Uber’s UI until I started replicating it. When I started the history buttons were circles in the bottom of the display and now they are pull downs from the search area. . The ability to move quickly and experiment with design decisions is crucial for an app like Uber With a few Services You can do Most of the Work I didn’t build anything remotely as elaborate or nuanced as the full app but the people who built 90% of this are the guys at Google. I used the native Google Maps widget and a few Google webservices (directions, places, geocoding). I also used Twilio & Braintree for SMS/billing respectively. With all of these you can get the big pieces of Uber functionality in less than a week! . With some help from existing tools building an Uber like app is actually not that hard The main problem would be the level of support you can get for an API like Google Maps within the cross platform tool. Uber on Android & my Uber clone. Not identical but getting there… I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Uber engineers. It’s a HUGELY complex app whose nuances are sublime. I think innovation comes from building something new, but not completely new. We improve on the last generation and build something “better”. I think that by making the process of building an app “like Uber” simple. We’ll see apps going well beyond Uber. TL;DR Here are the things I learned: Uber has one UI design that is almost identical in iOS & Android Fixes made to the Android version don’t trickle into the iOS version It’s a bit frustrating that in an otherwise identical UI iOS has features that are lacking in Android They don’t use a native Android SMS activation Uber believes in function over form The ability to move quickly and experiment with design decisions is crucial for an app like Uber With some help from existing tools building an Uber like app is actually not that hard If you want to learn more about this check out . our blog

What I Learned from Cloning the Uber App

Is a Former President Entitled to Immunity? The U.S. Supreme Court Discusses

Trump v. United States Court Filing, retrieved on July 1, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This is the table of links with all parts. Case Number: 23–939 Plaintiffs: Donald J. Trump Defendant: United States Filing Date: July 1, 2024 Location: Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Table of Content Trump v. United States Syllabus Donald J. Trump, Petitioner v. United States - Opinion of the Court I
II
III
IV
V THOMAS, J., concurring I
II JUSTICE BARRETT, concurring in part SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII JACKSON, J., dissenting I
II
III
IV About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved on July 1, 2024, supremecourt.gov is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. Trump v. United States Court Filing, retrieved on July 1, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This is the table of links with all parts. Trump v. United States Court Filing, retrieved on July 1, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part in this filing here . This is the table of links with all parts. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here Case Number: 23–939 Case Number: Plaintiffs: Donald J. Trump Plaintiffs: Defendant: United States Defendant: Filing Date: July 1, 2024 Filing Date: Location: Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Location: Table of Content Trump v. United States Trump v. United States Syllabus Syllabus Syllabus Donald J. Trump, Petitioner v. United States - Opinion of the Court Donald J. Trump, Petitioner v. United States - Opinion of the Court I II III IV V I I II II III III IV IV V V THOMAS, J., concurring THOMAS, J., concurring THOMAS, J., concurring I II I I II II JUSTICE BARRETT, concurring in part JUSTICE BARRETT, concurring in part JUSTICE BARRETT, concurring in part SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting I II III IV V VI VII I I II II III III IV IV V V VI VI VII VII JACKSON, J., dissenting JACKSON, J., dissenting I II III IV I I II II III III IV IV About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on July 1, 2024, supremecourt.gov is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on July 1, 2024, supremecourt.gov is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. supremecourt.gov

Former U.S. President Donald Trump v. United States: An Inside Look at the Shocking Trial

প্রাক্তন মার্কিন প্রেসিডেন্ট ডোনাল্ড ট্রাম্প বনাম মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্র: শকিং ট্রায়ালের একটি অভ্যন্তরীণ চেহারা

Ehemaliger US-Präsident Donald Trump gegen die Vereinigten Staaten: Ein Einblick in den schockierenden Prozess

El expresidente estadounidense Donald Trump contra Estados Unidos: una mirada al interior del impactante juicio

L’ancien président américain Donald Trump c. États-Unis : un aperçu du procès choquant

पूर्व अमेरिकी राष्ट्रपति डोनाल्ड ट्रम्प बनाम संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका: चौंकाने वाले मुकदमे पर एक अंदरूनी नज़र

ドナルド・トランプ前米大統領対米国：衝撃の裁判の内幕

도널드 트럼프 전 미국 대통령 대 미국: 충격적인 재판의 내부 모습

Ex-presidente dos EUA Donald Trump v. Estados Unidos: uma visão interna do julgamento chocante

Бывший президент США Дональд Трамп против США: взгляд изнутри на шокирующий процесс

Eski ABD Başkanı Donald Trump - Amerika Birleşik Devletleri: Şok Duruşmaya İçeriden Bir Bakış

Cựu Tổng thống Hoa Kỳ Donald Trump kiện Hoa Kỳ: Cái nhìn sâu sắc về phiên tòa gây sốc

美国前总统唐纳德·特朗普诉美国：深入了解这一令人震惊的审判

X Corp. v. Center for Countering Digital Hate, INC. Court Filing, retrieved on March 25, 2024 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 15 of 19. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here D. Tort Claims The complaint’s third and fourth causes of action are for intentional interference with contractual relations and inducing breach of contract, respectively. Intentional interference with contractual relations “protects against intentional acts not necessarily resulting in a breach.” Shamblin, 166 Cal. App. 3d at 122–23. It “requires that a plaintiff prove: (1) he had a valid and existing contract with a third party; (2) defendant had knowledge of this contract; (3) defendant committed intentional and unjustified acts designed to interfere with or disrupt the contract; (4) actual interference with or disruption of the relationship; and (5) resulting damages.” Id. at 123. Inducement of a breach of contract “protects against intentional acts designed to produce an actual breach and requires that a plaintiff prove: (1) he had a valid and existing contract [with a third party]; (2) . . . defendant had knowledge of the contract and intended to induce its breach; (3) the contract was in fact breached by the contracting party; (4) the breach was caused by . . . defendant’s unjustified or wrongful conduct; and (5) . . . damage[s] [were suffered as a result.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The two claims are “separate theories upon which the tort of interference with economic relations may be based.” Id. at 122. X Corp. alleges in support of its interference with contractual relations claim that “Defendants knew, based upon their experience in CCDH purporting to analyze data associated with social media platforms,” that “for Brandwatch to have access to X Corp. data for its SaaS products to analyze, X Corp. must have contracts with Brandwatch, and that Brandwatch would be prohibited under the terms of [its contract with X Corp.] from providing access to unauthorized parties.” FAC ¶ 91. X Corp. further alleges that “Defendants’ conduct prevented Brandwatch from performing under [its contract with X Corp.]” because “Brandwatch failed to secure the data from X Corp. according to the terms of the agreements.” Id. ¶ 93. X Corp. alleges that “[a]s a direct and proximate result of Defendants intentionally interfering with [Brandwatch’s contract with X Corp.], X Corp. has suffered monetary and other damages of at least tens of millions of dollars.” Id. X Corp. alleges in support of its inducing breach of contract claim that “Defendants knew, based on their experience in CCDH purporting to analyze data associated with social media platforms . . . that for Brandwatch to have access to X Corp. data for its SaaS products to analyze, X Corp. must have contracts with Brandwatch, and that Brandwatch would be prohibited under the terms of [its contract with X Corp.] from providing access to unauthorized parties, or allowing any unauthorized parties to access that data.” Id. ¶ 96. X Corp. further alleges that “Defendants knew . . . that CCDH obtaining login credentials from a valid user such as ECF to access the data would cause Brandwatch to breach [its contract with X Corp.] by allowing an unauthorized third party . . . to gain access to the data without proper permissions or authorizations.” Id. ¶ 97. X Corp. alleges that it was harmed “as a result of Defendant’s conduct when companies paused or refrained from advertising on X, in direct response to CCDH’s reports and articles,” and that “[a]s a direct and proximate result of Defendants inducing Brandwatch to breach [its contract with X Corp.], X Corp. has suffered monetary and other damages in the amount of at least tens of millions of dollars.” Id. ¶¶ 98, 99. CCDH argues as an initial matter that the two claims are redundant. MTD&S at 23. They certainly are. Inducing a breach of contract is a “species of intentional interference with contractual relations.” See 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Steinberg, 132 Cal. Rptr. 2d 789, 802 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003). The difference is that an “interference” claim does not require a breach. See Shamblin, 166 Cal. App. 3d at 123; see also Opp’n at 29 (interference claim is “narrower”). Here, because the only form of interference alleged is inducement of a breach, see FAC ¶¶ 93, 97, the claims allege the same thing. Accordingly, they rise and fall together. CCDH’s arguments for dismissing the tort claims are that: (1) the complaint shows that CCDH did not cause a breach; (2) the complaint has failed to plausibly allege a breach; (3) the complaint has failed to plausibly allege CCDH’s knowledge; and (4) the complaint fails to adequately allege damages. MTD&S at 23–26. The Court concludes that CCDH’s arguments about causation and about damages are persuasive, and does not reach its other arguments. Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on March 25, 2024, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. storage.courtlistener

Insights into Tort Claims by X (Formerly Twitter): Interference and Breach of Contracts

X Corp. v. Center for Countering Digital Hate, INC. Court Filing, retrieved on March 25, 2024 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 17 of 19. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here 2. Recoverable Damages CCDH also argues that X Corp. fails to allege plausible damages because (a) the complaint fails to allege that any breach by Brandwatch proximately caused the damage that X Corp. seeks, and (b) the same constitutional principle that prohibits X Corp. from recovering publication damages on its contract claim prohibit it from recovering publication damages on its non-defamation tort claims. See MTD&S at 25–26. The Court agrees with CCDH’s argument on constitutional grounds. X Corp. cannot seek damages for the independent acts of third parties based on CCDH’s speech. Accordingly, the “at least tens of millions of dollars” that X Corp. seeks in connection with CCDH allegedly causing Brandwatch to breach its contract with X Corp. are impermissible. See Planned Parenthood, No. 16-cv-236-WHO (Order on Motions to Dismiss and Strike) at 36 (“the First Amendment does not impose heightened standards on plaintiffs’ tort claims as long as plaintiffs do not seek reputational damages (lost profits, lost vendors) stemming from the publication conduct of defendants.”) (emphasis in original).[29] Because the tort claims fails to allege a theory of causation that makes sense, and seek impermissible publication damages, the Court STRIKES them.[30] Continue Reading . Here [29] X Corp. suggests that it is also seeking damages based on “actions it took—including internal investigations and allocation of employee resources—to address the security breach.” Opp’n at 31 (citing FAC ¶¶ 70–71). These tort claims do not reference that type of damage, instead using the “at least tens of millions of dollars” language that the complaint consistently attributes to the pause of advertiser spending, see FAC ¶¶ 93, 99, 5, 70. [30] At the motion hearing, X Corp. did not identify any new allegations that it could add to the tort claims if given leave to amend. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on March 25, 2024, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. storage.courtlistener

Recoverable Damages in the Case of X(Formerly Twitter) v. Center for Countering Digital Hate

X Corp. v. Center for Countering Digital Hate, INC. Court Filing, retrieved on March 25, 2024 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 14 of 19. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here C. Violation of CFAA[26] The complaint’s second cause of action is for violation of the CFAA. See FAC ¶¶ 80–88. “Congress enacted the CFAA in 1984 primarily to address the growing problem of computer hacking.” United States v. Nosal, 676 F.3d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Nosal I”). Under the CFAA, a party may be subject to liability if it “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains . . . information from any protected computer.” 18 U.S.C § 1030(a)(2)(C).[27] Courts are to interpret this prong of the statute narrowly, as the CFAA “is primarily a criminal statute” and is interpreted similarly across criminal and civil cases. See LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka, 581 F.3d 1127, 1134 (9th Cir. 2009). A private right of action is available to “[a]ny person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of this section.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g). X Corp. alleges that “Defendants, except ECF, have violated the CFAA by knowingly, and with intent to defraud X Corp., accessing a protected computer, without authorization, and by means of such conduct furthered the fraud and obtained one or more things of value.” FAC ¶ 82. It alleges that X Corp. provided non-public data to Brandwatch, which Brandwatch stored on a protected computer “accessible to only those with login credentials.” Id. ¶ 83. It alleges that Defendants other than ECF “were never validly given login credentials,” knew that the data was secured by the Brandwatch Agreements, and knew that they did not have authorization to access it, but nonetheless “conspired with ECF[] to share its login credentials.” Id. ¶ 84. It continues: “Defendants other than ECF then accessed that data without authorization” in order to mischaracterize the data in CCDH publications. Id. It further alleges that ECF and CCDH conspired to violate the CFAA so that CCDH could access X Corp.’s data, and, in knowing violation of X Corp.’s agreements with Brandwatch and ECF’s agreements with Brandwatch, ECF gave CCDH its login credentials. Id. ¶ 85. X Corp. finally alleges that it suffered a loss of over $5,000 as a result of the violations, including money spent on internal investigations, employee resources and time to assist in those investigations, and attorneys’ fees. Id. ¶ 87. CCDH argues that X Corp. fails to state a claim for violation of the CFAA because (1) X Corp. has not adequately alleged that CCDH accessed the Brandwatch data “without authorization”; (2) X Corp. has not adequately alleged loss; and (3) X Corp. has failed to specify which CFAA subsection was violated. MTD&S at 19–23. The Court concludes that CCDH’s argument about loss is persuasive, and does not reach CCDH’s other arguments. A civil claim under the CFAA requires “loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period . . . aggregating at least $5,000 in value.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(4)(A)(i)(I); Andrews v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., 932 F.3d 1253, 1262 (9th Cir. 2019). The CFAA “defines ‘loss’ as ‘any reasonable cost to any victim, including the cost of responding to an offense, conducting a damages assessment, and restoring the data, program, system, or information to its condition prior to the offense, and any revenue lost, cost incurred, or other consequential damages incurred because of interruption of service.’” Andrews, 932 F.3d at 1262 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(11)). CCDH argues that X Corp.’s loss allegations are inadequate because they are not losses from technical harms. MTD&S at 21. That is indeed a requirement under the CFAA, as the Supreme Court held in Van Buren v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1648, 1659– 60 (2021). The Court explained that “[t]he term ‘loss’ . . . relates to costs caused by harm to computer data, programs, systems, or information services.” Id. Despite X Corp.’s suggestion at the motion hearing that only damages must relate to “damage to the system,” see Tr. of 2/29/24 Hearing at 26:9–24, the Court in Van Buren stated that both damages and loss under the CFAA “focus on technological harms—such as the corruption of files— of the type unauthorized users cause to computer systems and data,” Van Buren, 141 S. Ct. at 1660. It observed that “[l]imiting ‘damage’ and ‘loss’ in this way makes sense in a scheme ‘aimed at preventing the typical consequences of hacking.’” Id. (quoting Royal Truck & Trailer Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Kraft, 974 F.3d 756, 760 (6th Cir. 2020)). The Ninth Circuit recognized this required showing of “technological harms” in the hiQ case. See hiQ 2022 Circuit opinion, 31 F.4th at 1195 n.12 (quoting Van Buren, 141 S. Ct. at 1659–60). X Corp. responds that “[c]osts to investigate and stop alleged violations of the CFAA are cognizable losses,” but it cites only to an unopposed Report and Recommendation, and a distinguishable one. See Opp’n at 26 (citing Facebook, Inc. v. Holper, No. 20-cv-6023-JCS, 2022 WL 17167958, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2022)). In Holper, 2022 WL 17167958, at *8, in trying to meet the CFAA’s damages threshold, Facebook pointed to its employees’ “efforts to investigate and stop” the defendant’s conduct. Facebook’s employees had disabled the defendant’s accounts, blocked his access, and sent him a cease and desist letter. Id. at *2. Here, though, X Corp. employees did not disable CCDH’s Brandwatch account, or block CCDH’s Brandwatch access, and they could not “stop” CCDH from accessing Brandwatch, because X Corp. is not Brandwatch. X Corp.’s losses in connection with “attempting to conduct internal investigations in efforts to ascertain the nature and scope of CCDH’s unauthorized access to the data,” see FAC ¶ 87, are not technological in nature. The data that CCDH accessed does not belong to X Corp., see Kaplan Decl. Ex. A at 13 (providing that users own their content and grant X Corp. “a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license”), and there is no allegation that it was corrupted, changed, or deleted. Moreover, the servers that CCDH accessed are not even X Corp.’s servers. X Corp. asserted at the motion hearing that its servers “stream data to Brandwatch servers in response to queries from a logged in user” and so “you cannot say fairly it’s not our systems.” Tr. of 2/29/24 Hearing at 28:16–20. But that is not what the complaint alleges. The complaint alleges that “X Corp. provided non-public data to Brandwatch” and “[t]hat data was then stored on a protected computer.” FAC ¶ 83; see also id. ¶ 86 (“the Licensed Materials were stored on servers located in the United States that Brandwatch used for its applications. CCDH and ECF thus knew that, in illegally using ECF’s login credentials and querying the Licensed Materials, CCDH was targeting and gaining unauthorized access to servers used by Brandwatch in the United States.”) (emphasis added); id. ¶ 29 (Twitter would stream its Licensed Materials from its servers, “including in California,” to “servers used by Brandwatch [] located in the United States, which Brandwatch’s applications accessed to enable [its] users with login credentials to analyze the data.”).[28] It is therefore hard to see how an investigation by X Corp. into what data CCDH copied from Brandwatch’s servers could amount to “costs caused by harm to computer data, programs, systems, or information services.” See Van Buren, 141 S. Ct. at 1659–60. Additionally, it is impossible to see how attorneys’ fees could amount to technological harm. See Delacruz v. State Bar of Cal., No. 16-cv–6858-BLF, 2018 WL 3077750, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2018) (“legal expenses are not a cognizable loss under the CFAA”) (citing Wichansky v. Zowine, 150 F. Supp. 3d 1055, 1071–72 (D. Ariz. 2015); Nexans Wires S.A. v. Sark-USA, Inc., 319 F. Supp. 2d 468, 474–75 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)); cf. Fraser v. Mint Mobile, LLC, No. C 22-138 WHA, 2022 WL 2391000, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2022) (fees to expert to trace stolen assets “were not related to remedying technological harms inflicted on the breached computer or system”). Loss incurred “not . . . to assess the breached system but to ‘assess [one’s] damages’” are not cognizable under the CFAA. See Fraser, 2022 WL 2391000, at *2. The Court will therefore dismiss the CFAA claim based on X Corp.’s failure to allege losses based on technological harms. See also NovelPoster v. Javitch Canfield Grp., 140 F. Supp. 3d 954, 964 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (“the majority of cases cited by defendants in which the court found an absence of CFAA-qualifying loss are summary judgment cases,” but “[t]hose cases cited by defendants that do concern pleading motions involve situations where the plaintiff failed to allege that the defendant’s conduct caused impairment of data or interruption of service.”). Continue Reading . Here [26] Again, the CFAA cause of action is not subject to the motion to strike because it is federal. See Hilton, 599 F.3d at 901 (“[T[he anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to federal law causes of action.”). [27] A “protected computer” includes essentially any computer connected to the Internet. See hiQ 2022 Circuit opinion, 31 F.4th at 1195; 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2). [28] FAC ¶ 36 is a slightly closer fit to what X Corp. argued at the motion hearing, as it references both X Corp.’s servers and Brandwatch’s servers, but it is vaguer than paragraphs 29, 83, and 86 about where the Licensed Materials were stored. Even if the Licensed Materials were stored on the X Corp. servers and then streamed to Brandwatch servers whenever a Brandwatch user ran a query, X Corp. did not articulate how CCDH logging into the Brandwatch system using a Brandwatch subscriber’s valid login information could cause technological harm to X Corp.’s server. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on March 25, 2024, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. storage.courtlistener

X (Formerly Twitter) v CCDH: Analysis of CFAA Violation Claim

X Corp. v. Center for Countering Digital Hate, INC. Court Filing, retrieved on March 25, 2024 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 10 of 19. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here B. Breach of Contract Claim The complaint’s first cause of action is for breach of contract. FAC ¶¶ 73–79. To state a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff must allege (1) the existence of a contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) resulting damages to the plaintiff. See Oasis W. Realty, 250 P.3d at 1121. X Corp. alleges that X Corp. and CCDH U.S. are parties to the ToS, which explicitly prohibits “‘scraping the Services without the prior consent of Twitter.’” FAC ¶¶ 74, 75. X Corp. further alleges that it fully performed its obligations, but that CCDH U.S. violated the ToS by scraping the X platform, and that CCDH then “mischaracterized the data it obtained by unlawfully scraping in its reports and articles, in efforts to claim X is overwhelmed with harmful conduct, and support CCDH’s call to companies to stop advertising on X.” Id. ¶¶ 76–78. X Corp. notes that CCDH’s February 9, 2023 report admits that “‘[t]o gather tweets from each of the ten reinstated accounts, [CCDH’s] researchers used the social media web-scraping tool SNScrape, which utilizes Twitter’s search function to enable data collection.’” Id. ¶ 77. And X Corp. alleges that “[a]s a direct and proximate result of CCDH U.S.’s breaches of the ToS in scraping X, X Corp. has suffered monetary and other damages in the amount of at least tens of millions of dollars.” Id. ¶ 78. The “at least tens of millions of dollars” of damages derives from companies pausing paid advertising on the X platform in response to CCDH’s “allegations against X Corp. and X regarding hate speech and other types of content on X.” Id. ¶ 70. CCDH argues that X Corp. fails to state a breach of contract claim, for three reasons: (1) X Corp. has failed to adequately allege a breach; (2) if the ToS’s anti-scraping provision applies, it violates public policy; and (3) X Corp. has failed to adequately allege recoverable damages. MTD&S at 9–18. The Court concludes that CCDH’s argument about damages is persuasive, and does not reach CCDH’s other arguments. CCDH maintains that X Corp. fails to adequately allege damages resulting from CCDH’s alleged scraping of the X platform because: (a) under state contract law, X Corp.’s lost advertising revenue is not recoverable; (b) constitutional law bars X Corp. from using a non-defamation cause of action to recover reputational damages; and (c) allowing this cause of action, in which X Corp. seeks tens of millions of dollars, to stand would subject CCDH to “significant costs of enduring discovery and litigation . . . against a well-resourced adversary with every incentive to impose crushing burdens on the CCDH Defendants.” Id. at 15–18. That last argument is emotional rather than legal; while the Court is not blind to the David and Goliath dynamic here, the law does not bar big companies from suing small nonprofits, so long as the suit is otherwise up to snuff. This order therefore addresses only CCDH’s arguments based on state contract law and constitutional law. Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on March 25, 2024, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. storage.courtlistener

X (Formerly Twitter) Hits CCDH With Breach of Contract Allegations

X Corp. v. Center for Countering Digital Hate, INC. Court Filing, retrieved on March 25, 2024 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 2 of 19. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here B. Procedural History X Corp. brought suit on July 31, 2023. See Compl. (dkt. 1). X Corp. amended its complaint on August 7, 2023. See FAC. The complaint now includes causes of action for (1) breach of contract, in connection with the ToS, against CCDH U.S.; (2) breach of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1030, in connection with the Brandwatch data, against all Defendants; (3) intentional interference with contractual relations, as to Brandwatch’s agreement with X Corp., against all Defendants; and (4) inducing breach of contract, as to Brandwatch’s agreement with X Corp., against all Defendants. See id. CCDH moves to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and moves to strike pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute. MTD&S. The motion is fully briefed, see MTD&S, Opp’n (dkt. 62), Reply (dkt. 65), and the Court has received amicus briefs from (1) Public Participation Project, in support of CCDH, see PPP Br. (dkt. 55-1), and (2) the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, also in support of CCDH, see ACLU Br. (dkt. 52-1). The Court held a motion hearing on Thursday, February 29, 2024. See Tr. of 2/29/24 Hearing. Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on March 25, 2024, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. storage.courtlistener

Stories, News & Mentions about FORMDR

Formdr’s Stories on HackerNoon