The letter says and we can see from documents in the Kleiman v Wright case—aka the Satoshi Trial in Florida—that WII is the company that Dr.
Among the letters that went out, there appears to be two distinct versions.
As a result, the bitcoin.org site was forced to post a notice informing visitors of the ruling and the paper was removed from the site.
Wright expressly made the Bitcoin code subject to the permissive MIT license, he did not do the same for the accompanying Bitcoin database or its contents.
Wright’s concerns have been consistent since asserting his rights over Bitcoin as its creator: his invention is being used to sell and promote unaffiliated products with little or no relation to the system originally described in the white paper.
The high-profile nature of those who were sent letters will likely generate a lot of noise and complaints from those aligned with the recipients, the assertion and enforcement of intellectual property rights is a natural and vital part of business.
One can assume that the actions would take a similar form to those launched against Cøbra, at least as far as the letters concerning the Bitcoin name go.
A large number of unaffiliated third parties are currently profiting from Bitcoin—either directly by using the database or code in their own forked projects or by using the Bitcoin name to promote themselves and others—or both.
LimeWire, a peer to peer music sharing application, was ultimately shut down as a result, as plaintiffs were successfully able to hold LimeWire responsible not only for their own copyright infringement, but that they were also liable for inducing copyright infringement to whom the software had been distributed.