If you consider what most cryptocurrency proponents [2] are trying to do, you will see an attempt to exclude governments and rights and create a system that cannot be controlled outside of the control dictated by technocratic developers. Many criminal groups want such a scenario. Unfortunately for them, Bitcoin was designed to provide the opposite outcome.

“Forking” a software branch is allowed under the MIT license. LTC and ETH are both “forked” codebases, derived from Bitcoin. CoreCoin, BTC, differs in the sense that it both copied the database [3] and sought to pass off the new system as if it was the old.

To give an analogy, the Bitcoin software that was released as an implementation is an open-source software under the MIT License. Linux and OpenOffice are each open-source products. If I was to write a novel using Linux as the operating system and OpenOffice as the editing platform, the software remains open-source, but the product of my work does not. In other words, I retain the copyright in the works I create using the open-source software. Bitcoin is a distributed registry. Tokens are not distributed as they reside in individual wallets, that are controlled by individuals around the world that use the Bitcoin system. The tokens are distributed in a peer-to-peer manner, from individual to individual. The registry of the movement is a separate peer-to-peer network, that acts within the hybrid system that is Bitcoin. The registry [4] presents the distributed ledger. And the distributed ledger is a database.

As the sole creator of Bitcoin, I own full rights to the Bitcoin registry. People can fork my software and make alternative versions. But, they have no rights to change the protocol using the underlying database. I was explicit when I said so by putting forward reasons not to fork the database. Yet, both Bitcoin Core (Core) and Bitcoin ABC (ABC), global partnerships under law, have sought to use my database without authority. Rather than seeking licences, they have sought to attack my character and impugned me. This year, I am taking charge and control of my system [5]. Those involved with the copied systems that are passing themselves off as Bitcoin, namely BTC or CoreCoin and BCH or BCash, are hereby put on notice. Please trust me when I say that I’m far nicer before the lawyers get involved.

As the creator of Bitcoin, I have what is known as database rights in the European Union and the UK. As a part of distributed global partnerships, senior partners within Core or ABC reside within Europe and the UK, presenting the opportunity to incorporate them in the matter without any jurisdictional challenges. They come under British law [6].

We have started actions to ensure that our trust and related companies become British. That is, we seek to move them into the British residence status. At present, they exist outside of European jurisdictions, across several low-tax regions, including a country that I am a citizen of: Antigua. We have actively selected the UK, knowing that we will be paying tax in the country I have decided to live in, and are in the process of reporting assets we own in the structure to the British government. I have explained many times, Bitcoin is not a system that allows you to avoid government [7]. If such is your goal, you should avoid any blockchain, because blockchains are all traceable.

Database rights

Bitcoin has been falsely taken to be a system that issues [8] new coins (bitcoin) approximately every 10 minutes, as a payment to nodes for the validation of transactions within the network [9]. Such a perspective would see Bitcoin to come with an ongoing issuance, which is incorrect. The system within Bitcoin was launched with the full issue of all tokens. At its creation, Bitcoin was formulated as a system with a set number of individual tokens, defined as approximately 21 million bitcoin where each bitcoin is an arbitrary verbal representation of 100 million individual and indivisible tokens.

Bitcoin is a distributed database[10] with database rights governed by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) [“CDPA”] and the Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations (“Databases Regulations”). The distributed database[11] exists as personal property where Bitcoin is a distributed database with database rights governed by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) [“CDPA”] and the Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations (“Databases Regulations”). The distributed database defined by bitcoin may be defined as a “property right (“database right”) [that] subsists, … in a database if there has been a substantial investment in obtaining, verifying or presenting the contents of the database[12]”.

Bitcoin has an issuer. In January 2009, as director of companies I created in multiple jurisdictions, I issued 21 million bitcoin where each individual bitcoin is an indivisible set of 100 million tokens. To distribute those tokens, (note the word distribute because that is on the original unilateral contractual offer[13] presented to nodes who act as agents to my network), I set up a contractual arrangement where nodes (which many people called miners today) act within a set of common rules I defined. If you don’t like those rules, you are free to create a new crypto currency in the manner that litecoin and Ethereum and others have done. If you negotiate with me, arrangements can be made allowing the continuance of selected copies of my network with a set of restrictions. That is, I am willing to license[14] the bitcoin database. This will be done on my terms. Those terms are rather generous right now, but I would prefer other terms and have been talked into doing something far more generous than I would desire. I would prefer to take this through court because, I will win because those who are currently challenging me do not know what’s about to happen. It’s time you learn who created bitcoin, and it is me.

As the creator of bitcoin, I maintain the sui generis rights to any copy of the database created from Genesis in January 2009. I shall not be relinquishing that ownership. I will be licensing it and have already engaged in a process so that the original bitcoin protocol that I created, that is known as Bitcoin SV at present will continue no matter what happens to me.

The structure will follow the unilateral contract that I initially presented on the bitcoin website I set up in 2008. As long as the rules of bitcoin, the basic protocol does not change, I am bound under a unilateral contract to the nodes acting as agents within the system. When an illegal copy of the bitcoin database has not been validly licensed through my companies, those rules no longer apply. The issue of outstanding tokens may be a promissory condition between developers and others but it is not something that binds me. And I’m the only one who matters in this scenario. You see, you are trespassing on my property rights.

Databases Regulations 1997

The distributed ledger in Bitcoin is “a collection of independent works, data or other materials which are arranged in a systematic or methodical way and are individually accessible by electronic or other means”[15]. The database right protects the collated information itself. Under this regulation, the initial owner of the database right is the maker of the database[16]. Bitcoin and any block chain based system would be covered for at least the 15 year publication. Retrospective bitcoin itself, the database was published formally in mid-January 2009.

The operators of Bitcoin nodes are engaged for a fee to provide a service collating ordering validated transactions in the manner following the process defined in the bitcoin White Paper:

The steps to run the network are as follows:

1) New transactions are broadcast to all nodes.

2) Each node collects new transactions into a block.

3) Each node works on finding a difficult proof-of-work for its block.

4) When a node finds a proof-of-work, it broadcasts the block to all nodes.

5) Nodes accept the block only if all transactions in it are valid and not already spent.

6) Nodes express their acceptance of the block by working on creating the next block in the chain, using the hash of the accepted block as the previous hash.

Node operators are commercial entities who can come and go at will and provide a pure service. Node operators are paid at a predetermined rate based on a combination of a decreasing subsidy combined with the collection of fees from users of the network. The subsidy is issued as payment from the initial issuance of bitcoin. This initial issuance was 21 million bitcoin in the number of tokens defined above. These tokens are paid in consideration for the effort of validating transactions to the nodes.

The subsidy was predefined and algorithmically constructed on the initial release of the system. The fee is determined by the amount of use coupled with the competitive commercial market with users able to set lower fees and nodes able to reject transactions that do not meet a minimum level. Consequently, nodes may be seen as agents of the bitcoin network with no individual property rights. The maker of any block chain system is the person who takes the initiative in obtaining, verifying and presenting the contents of the database and assumes the risk of investing in that process. Bitcoin and any related block chain structure is a system of issued tokens that are distributed under a set of predefined rules to node operators who act as an agent under the initial rules set by the creator of the system. These agents are renumerated on an ad hoc basis in order to provide a validated audit of all transactions of the network that checks for double spends or the digital equivalent of check fraud.

Access to view and validate the distributed database known as a block chain is provided as a published dataset for the purposes of checking and validating transactions. Systematic extraction and/or reutilisation of any section of the block chain in a copied or forked version of software would lead to a breach[17] . Such a breach would occur in conditions where a radically altered protocol had been launched in what is called by the community a hard or soft fork that leads to a separation of protocols and competing systems on an exchange. In such a scenario, the rules set by the creator of the system would determine what would be a breach. In the case of bitcoin, the rules of the system are set in stone[18]. A protocol alteration[19] such as the introduction of segregated witness and the additions to operating codes in both BTC and BCH would hence be clear breaches of the database rights associated with bitcoin.

In the instance where a group has copied bitcoin or a similar system, the owner can take action to prevent the extraction or reutilisation of the database. Where a software fork has not attempted to pass itself off as the original, such as in bitcoin copies or forked like Ethereum and LiteCoin, no database rights have been breached as a new databases formed utilising the forked software. Where altered protocols such as BTC have copied the database from bitcoin and released a competing system to the original, database rights could be expressed and enforced by the creator of the original protocol.

Bitcoin differs from Ethereum in that the creator of Ethereum forked the system and had not intended for their fork of the bitcoin system to have a set protocol. When Ethereum and Ethereum Classic separated, Ethereum classic continued to use a copy of the original Ethereum block chain. In this instance, the creator of the system changed the protocol. Consequently, the protocol rights resided with the new version of Ethereum leaving Ethereum Classic in breach of the database rights owned by the original creator of Ethereum.

Bitcoin core on the other hand is unrelated to the original creator of bitcoin and bitcoin was designed to have a stable protocol that did not change. Hence, the alteration of the bitcoin protocol in 2017 into BTC and in 2018 into BCH as they created copies of the protocol based on the original bitcoin database breached the database rights of the creator of bitcoin.

The structure of bitcoin is designed such that the public database will be available publicly to be lent out for the purposes of teaching and research and those covered under the Database Regulations reg. 12(2) and (3). Bitcoin block chain is not given under public assess rights but rather is provided on terms that will be returned and distributed by the nodes under a set of predefined rules. The distribution and return of the database is delivered for the purposes of validating and auditing the system allowing the commercial exchange of the tokens. The amount exchanged to nodes covers the mere cost of establishment and facilitates the commercial realisation of the database.

Licensing and EULA

The bitcoin software was released under an MIT licence that provided for the rights to copy the software but not the database. The license included both standard use and a provision for nodes to be paid as agents of the network:

To support the network by running a node, select:

Options->Generate Coins

and keep the program open or minimized. It runs at idle priority when no other programs are using the CPU. Your computer will be solving a very difficult computational problem that is used to lock in blocks of transactions. The time to generate a block varies each time, but may take days or months, depending on the speed of your computer and the competition on the network. It’s not a computation that has to start over from the beginning if you stop and restart it. A solution might be found at any given moment it’s running. As a reward for supporting the network, you receive coins when you successfully generate a block.[20]

The EULA associated with bitcoin forms a contractual arrangement who acts as an agent between the operator of the node who acts as a paid contractual agent with the task to validate and collect information forming a distributed database and the issuer of the system. The node is both a transaction agent and the transaction facilitator that acts as a contractual agent for the token issuer and initial distributer[21]. The complex task of maintaining the distributed database (the blockchain ledger), transaction processing and propagation, and the distribution function becomes streamlined when outsourced to a distributed set of agents that provide these services and self-audit and enforce the rules of the system.

The Unilateral offer presented in the Bitcoin EULA[22] acts to provide a comparable agreement to that inferred by the justices in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company[23]. The license entails consideration in the payment of “a reward for supporting the network”… where the contracting agent is provided consideration in the form of “coins” that are digital tokens exhibiting properties that are “definable, identifiable by third parties, capable in its nature of assumption by third parties, and have some degree of permanence or stability.[24]” These are issued when the agent (the node) successfully generates a block. Where a company’s web site makes claims about a product and the consumer (or node operator as agent) acts upon those claims, the owner of the website is contractually bound to fulfil their promise.

The original bitcoin website[25], provided for a system where “Users hold the crypto keys to their own money and transact directly with each other, with the help of the network to check for double-spending”.

The bitcoin White Paper (Wright, 2008) is linked and referenced on the bitcoin website and defines the steps required to operate as a node or agent of the network:

The steps to run the network are as follows:

1) New transactions are broadcast to all nodes.

2) Each node collects new transactions into a block.

3) Each node works on finding a difficult proof-of-work for its block.

4) When a node finds a proof-of-work, it broadcasts the block to all nodes.

5) Nodes accept the block only if all transactions in it are valid and not already spent.

6) Nodes express their acceptance of the block by working on creating the next block in the chain, using the hash of the accepted block as the previous hash.

This process provides users of the system with extended utility in that nodes maintain transactional data allowing an individual who is not online to connect to the commercial nodes to exchange transactions using a distributed middleman. Where is this use of the network is not truly peer-to-peer, it provides a “useful alternative if both users can’t be online at the same time or the recipient can’t receive incoming connections”[26].

The Computer Misuse Act 1990 (UK)[27] incorporates the misuse of access to public databases. Such an infringement was tested in Ryanair Ltd v PR Aviation BV (C-30/14)[28]. In this case, Ryanair litigated the defendant claiming infringement of database rights that are defined in Database Directive (96/9/EC), as well as for breach of website terms and conditions. Articles 6, 8 and 15 of the Database Directive do not preclude the introduction of digitally distributed contractual limits on the use of a database. What follows is that the author of a database may lay down contractual limitations on its use by third parties even though it is not protected by copyright or the sui generis right.

In the UK, a website operator may try to bring a claim for trespass to chattels, a common law tort. In addition, an operator may seek to rely on the Computer Misuse Act 1990 which prohibits unauthorised access to, or modification of, computer material.

Peer to Peer

Bitcoin is commonly touted in the press to be a completely decentralised system with no point of ownership. The commonly used quote is cherry picked out of context to lead to this false view:

Bitcoin is an electronic cash system that uses a peer-to-peer network to prevent double-spending. It’s completely decentralized with no server or central authority.[29]

The original bitcoin website[30], explained this differently and in more detail;

“Users hold the crypto keys to their own money and transact directly with each other, with the help of the network to check for double-spending”.

This was further explained on other sites such as the P2P foundation website:

“One of the fundamental building blocks for such a system is digital signatures. A digital coin contains the public key of its owner. To transfer it, the owner signs the coin together with the public key of the next owner. Anyone can check the signatures to verify the chain of ownership. It works well to secure ownership, but leaves one big problem unsolved: double-spending. Any owner could try to re-spend an already spent coin by signing it again to another owner. The usual solution is for a trusted company with a central database to check for double-spending, but that just gets back to the trust model. In its central position, the company can override the users, and the fees needed to support the company make micropayments impractical.

Bitcoin’s solution is to use a peer-to-peer network to check for double-spending. In a nutshell, the network works like a distributed timestamp server, stamping the first transaction to spend a coin. It takes advantage of the nature of information being easy to spread but hard to stifle. For details on how it works, see the design paper at http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf”[31].

In effect, bitcoin is a combined hybrid system that uses multiple peer-to-peer networks that are interconnected. Users can exchange transactions in a completely peer-based manner with individuals exchanging directly. At the same time, a separate peer network based on commercial nodes acting as agents for the network is created that enables the development of a distributed database created based on a unilateral contract.

Summary of issues

In a protocol such as Ethereum where the contractual agreement incorporates updates and alterations that can be conducted by the original creator and developer of the protocol, the altered protocol is the valid system and database where it is altered by the owner of the database.

Conversely, bitcoin is created under a fixed contractual promise binding the system and limiting the amount of change. In this, it is required that transaction types created at the start of the system remain throughout the life of the system and that the owner of the database is contractually bound to maintain that structure. Where another party copies and utilises the database in an unauthorised manner such as what is commonly called a bitcoin fork, the version of the protocol that differs from the original is unauthorised and in breach of Database Rights[32] and the Computer Misuse Act[33].

Finally….

It takes time to implement legal redress. It has been a while since bitcoin was copied in BTC attempted to pass off an illegally taken breach of copyright that is the database created by agents funded under my unilateral contract from 2009 until the segment fork, and I apologise for the tardiness, yet if people had not been criminally breaching certain acts this would not be necessary. 2020 is looking at being a fine year.

For some of us… At least not the anarchist community.

Notes:

[1] ne of the major issues stems from the false understanding of bitcoin. People are applying the notion of EGold and digicash and treating bitcoin as if it has the same ends and goals. Many in the industry purposely seek to spread false information as they have other agendas.

If we are to do this correctly, we need to demonstrate what bitcoin is truly about and as you started to understand the differences between bitcoin and the copies. As with demonstrating the distinctions between bitcoin and the copied system, BTC, there are simple technical evaluations that can be done to prove this.

[2] Bitcoin is not a community project. It allows corporate groups to earn money through either mining (which is running a node) or the provision of other services. Nodes operate commercially and should be funding their own development on top of the protocol, but this requires a stable protocol. At no point have I abandoned bitcoin and that itself is demonstrable through the history of company that had from 2009 on have been solely working on this project.

[3] The distributed ledger is a database, but it is not under the MIT license.

[4] Those miners or nodes choose to selectively order transactions under an arrangement defined in the Whitepaper and early code.

[5] Flogas Britain Ltd v Calor Gas Ltd [2013] EWHC 3060 (Ch) would seem to be relevant.

[6] The Database Regulations (1997) Section 18 provides for people who are habitually resident at the time the material act occurred. As I stated, this was first of all 2017 with BTC and then 2018 with BCH. I now reside and have been resident for all material times since 2015 in the UK. The act also notes that the material time allows where this occurred over an extended period a substantial part of that period. The legislation covers the initial creator and allows entities that exist overseas to move into the European Union. I have maintained companies in the UK far longer. Ownership of rights was moved into a company in the UK in 2012. That was part of the trust structure that I had constructed. That entity was valid up until when I moved into the UK myself. As the databases made over an extended period, in all forms we follow a substantial period under the section 18 part (4) act.

[7] Database rights last 15 years, so this is not so much of an issue. The passing off, at present we are 2 1/2 years in on this. In the UK the limitation act gives us six years, , so we are within time but it is always better not to wait to the last minute.

[8] Bitcoin was created in 2009 with all 21 million bitcoin issued. The system was constructed so that nodes (aka miners — note only miners are nodes) are paid to validate transactions. At no point do they own the database. This mirrors cloud servers that allow access to load records in a SQL database. The miners have been paid in full for their efforts. They are not the owners of the network nor the creator of the database, they are independent entities who are paid to validate transactions and load these into the database. Hence, they can come and go at will.

[9] Nodes and miners are thus subcontracting to the initially constructed set of rules that I created. That is, they are following a set of rules and acting as my agents. If you look at S.15 of the Database Regulations, the maker of the database is the first owner of database right in it and not the subsequent members. As such, miners do not have rights and are merely agents.

[10] People need to move away from the concept that “bitcoin is decentralised” as a political goal. The registry is distributed, but the property rights remain mine (through trusts and companies I created and the structure I setup to enforce those rules). The code is law mentality is a lie (and was discredited by Prof. Tim Wu in 2001) and was never part of bitcoin. Although people seek to make this the primary reason of what bitcoin is all about, at no point has this been the case and nor can it be without radically altering the system as they are trying to do.

[11] Section 16 of the act provides that a person infringes in the right of the database if without the consent of the owner of the right he extracts or re-utilises all or if essential part of the contents of the database. This occurred after 2017. Until that point, although there were people in bitcoin core trying to change bitcoin, the system was still related to the original chain. At the point of change in 2017 with a radically altered bitcoin from that defined in the Whitepaper, this is where the act of infringing my rights started.

[12] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/3032/regulation/13/made

[13] https://web.archive.org/web/20090131115053/http://bitcoin.org/

Note: “Total circulation will be 21,000,000 coins. It’ll be distributed to network nodes when they make blocks, with the amount cut in half every 4 years.”

[14] The issue is not whether someone copies but whether they use it in a way that does not allowable. The miners are paid to do a service. There is no ownership in the database by the miners. Again, you’re looking at the code is law mantra and not how bitcoin is actually created.

[15] CDPA 1988 s.3A(1).

[16] Database Regulations reg. 14(1) and (2).

In the regulations here in the UK the first owner of the database right is the maker of the database or my employer. At the time, I was doing this through my trust entities and companies in my rights vest in myself. The database in bitcoin is continuously published in the protection last 15 years from the end of that publication. BTC forked off a few years ago and took this database. A database is protected if there’s been a substantial investment in obtaining verifying and presenting the contents of the database, this is what miners do. Nodes verify and present the database.

Under the regulation, the protections offered to a database holder include the ability to decide how it can be taken and used. This includes the extraction and re-utilisation of any substantial part of that database and reutilisation also means making the contents of the database available to the public by any means (reg 12(1)).

The database is not covered under copyright or open source provisions. The database for bitcoin has not been released under an MIT license and is not covered by the copyright. The database associated with bitcoin is presumptively associated with myself and the rights vest in myself (reg 22) or rather my trust and associated companies.

The database in bitcoin has been released and published for a single purpose. That purpose is defined as the validation of rights associated with individuals using the system. It is there to be publicly audited. There are no rights to take the database and use it for other means including that which BTC uses it.

The database is allowed to be copied and even published under the regulations.

[17] Databases Regulations reg. 16(2).

Database rights unable 15 years worth of protection. Under the databases regulations, this is from when the database was first compiled. The split occurred well within this time. I database right protects certain collections of independent works data or other materials that are systematically arranged that individually accessible. The bitcoin distributed ledger is derived in this manner. This differs from copyright in that it protects the collected information rather than simply the form in which it is presented. No formality is required to attract database right protection other than the database itself is a qualifying database (reg 13(1)).

[18] I also stated that forking the database was not something that was warranted, but few seem to listen…

[19] The arguments that locking the protocol stops them making changes is exactly the point. They can make a new system, LTC did just this. 1000s of other knock offs have as well. The difference is they did not try and defraud investors. As the cracks appear, the BTC and BCH supporters are starting to prove my point as well.

[20] https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/master/readme.txt

[21] Lim, 2002

[22] End-user-license-agreement

[23] Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256

[24] Foskett v McKeown, [2001] 1 A.C. 102, HL.

[25] https://web.archive.org/web/20090303195936/http://bitcoin.org/

[26] https://web.archive.org/web/20090303195936/http://bitcoin.org/

[27] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/18/contents

[28] EU:C:2015:10; [2015] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 455

[29] https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/master/readme.txt

[30] https://web.archive.org/web/20090131115053/http://bitcoin.org/

[31] https://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/bitcoin-open-source

[32] UK 1997

[33] CMA (1990).

References and further reading…

1. Bainbridge, D (2000) “Introduction to Computer Law” Longman/Pearson Education: Harlow

2. Beatson, J. (2002) “Anson’s Law of Contract”. 28th Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, UK

3. Beale, H.G., Bishop, W.D. & Furmston, M.P. (2001) “Contract, Cases and Materials”. 4th Edition, London: Butterworths, UK

4. Brown, I. and A. (2005) “Chandler Blackstone’s Q&A Law of Contract”. 5th Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, UK

5. Brownsword, Roger, (2000) “Contract law: themes for the twenty-first century:, Butterworths

6. Cavazos, Edward A. & Morin, Gavino (1994) “When Acceptance Becomes Effective: The Mailbox Rule, The Mailbox Rule Revisited, The E-mailbox Rule?” in “Cyberspace and the Law”, Chapter 3, MIT Press, USA

7. Department of Communications, Republic of South Africa (1999) “Discussion Paper on Electronic Commerce Policy” http://www.polity.org.za/html/govdocs/discuss/ecomm.html?rebookmark=1 (Viewed 14 July 2006)

8. Dunn, Gary (2001) “On-Line Contract Formation — Contracting Issues for Businesses on the Net”, http://www.dunn.com/papers/paper_14.shtml (Viewed 15 July 2006)

9. Durtschi, Cindy; Hillison, William; Pacini, Carl (2002) “Web-Based Contracts: You Could Be Burned!” Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance, Volume 13, Issue 5 , Pp 11–18.

10. Fischer, S & Hurley, A. (1995) “Trade and Commerce — International Trade”, in Halsbury’s Laws of Australia, Vol 27 Title 420.

11. Furmston, M.P. “Cheshire, Fifoot & Furmston’s Law of Contract”. London: Butterworths, UK

12. Gkoutzinis, Apostolos (2003) “Online Financial Services in the European Internal Market and the Implementation of the E-Commerce Directive in the UK” Queen Mary, University of London, 18th BILETA Conference: “Controlling Information in the Online Environment”

13. Lim, Yee Fen (2002) “Cyberspace Law, Commentaries and Materials”, Oxford University Press UK

14. McKendrick, Ewan (2005) “Contract Law” 6th Edition, Palgrave MacMillan Law Masters, UK [1]

15. McKendrick, Ewan (2005) “Contract: Text and Materials” 2nd Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, UK [2]

16. Neumann, Peter G. (2005) “Illustrative Risks to the Public in the Use of Computer Systems and Related Technology”, SRI International EL243, Menlo Park CA

17. Poole, J. (2005) “Casebook on Contract Law” 7th edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, UK

18. Rasch, Mark (2006) “E-mail privacy in the workplace”; Security Focus; http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/412/33856/threaded#33856, (Viewed 02 August 2006)

19. Reed, Chris (2004) “Internet Law Text and Materials”, 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press, UK

20. Schu, Reinhard (1997) “Consumer Protection and Private International Law in Internet Contracts” International Journal of Law and Information Technology (1997) 5 Int J L & IT 192.

21. Smith, J.C. (2000) “Smith & Thomas: A Casebook on Contract”. 11th Edition, London: Sweet & Maxwell, UK

22. Stone, R. (2005) “The Modern Law of Contract” 6th Edition. London: Cavendish

23. Treitel, G.H. (2003) “The Law of Contract”. 11th Edition, London: Sweet & Maxwell

24. Vaughan, Jane; Sewards, Tanya & Kelso, Ross (1997) “The Law of Internet Commercial Transactions”, Centre for International Research on Communication and Information Technologies, Australia.

Cases

1. Adams v. Lindsell, 1 Barnewall and Alderson 681, In the King’s Bench (1818)
2. Apple Corps Limited v Apple Computer, Inc. [2004] EWHC 768
3. Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl (1983) 2 AC 34 (House of Lords, UK)
4. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256
5. Debenhams Retail Plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners [2004] EWHC 1540
6. Daulia v Four Millbank Nominees Ltd [1978] 2 All E R 557
7. Eliason v Henshaw, 17 US 225, 4 Wheat. 225 (1819)
8. Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] 2 QB 327 (Court of Appeal, United Kingdom)
9. Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394
10. Household Fire Insurance Co v Grant [1879] 4 Ex D 216
11. Hyde v Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334
12. Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial & General Investments [1970] 1 WLR 241
13. MARK WILLIAMS and another(1) vs. AMERICA ONLINE, INC. 2001 WL 135825 (Mass. Super., February 8, 2001)
14. Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 2 All ER 421
15. Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd. [1953] 2 QB 795
16. Roscorla v Thomas (1842) 3 QB 234
17. Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 1 All ER 686

Other Statues and Regulations

1. Directive 2000/31/EC on Electronic Commerce OJ 2000 L 178/1 and Council Directive 94/44/EC on Certain Aspects of the Sale of Consumer Goods and Associated Guarantees OJ I 171 7.7.99
2. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly [on the report of the Sixth Committee (A/51/628)] 51/162 Model Law on Electronic Commerce adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.
3. Germany: case RGZ 144, 292
4. Sale of Goods (United Nations Convention) Act 1994
5. The Electronic Commerce Directive (00/31/EC) and the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002 №2013). [Includes The Electronic Commerce Directive (00/31/EC) and the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002 №2013); On the 21 August 2002 the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002 №2013) transposed into UK law the majority of the provisions of the Electronic Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC)]
6. Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, 1999; USA
7. UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce with Guide to Enactment (1996), with additional article 5 bis as adopted (United Nations Model Law on Electronic Commerce (1996))
8. US: Restatement 2d of Contracts, S 56 & The United States Framework for Global Electronic Commerce