Can someone explain, in this day, how it is possible we don't know who Satoshi is? He communicated with the bitcoin community, wrote a paper,... That should have left plenty of digital breadcrumbs to e.g. analyze writing style, see where IP adresses came from, etc...
This was a joint trial for a preliminary issue in two cases.
In one case Wright brought a claim seeking "hundreds of billions of pounds" in damages against volunteer open source contributors to Bitcoin (including myself) on the basis that their use and distribution of Bitcoin violate his database rights in the Bitcoin blockchain, Copyright in the Bitcoin whitepaper, and copyright in the bitcoin file format.
In the other case The Crypto Open Patent alliance (COPA) sought a declaratory judgement on behalf of its members (mostly cryptocurrency exchanges and payment processors) who had been threatened with litigation by Wright for distributing the Bitcoin whitepaper.
COPA's request for declaratory judgement was subsequent to Wright bringing a similar claim against the operator of Bitcoin.org (the original Bitcoin website) and securing a default judgement against them because by policy the UK will not allow an anonymous party to present a defense, resulting in an order against Bitcoin.org to prohibit it from distributing the bitcoin whitepaper in the UK. Wright had also previously brought defamation claims against a number of private individuals for simply saying Wright isn't Satoshi, so the legal threats that motivated and justified COPA's declaratory relief weren't fanciful, but both serious and chilling.
So essentially, the courts needed to tackle the issue because Wright has engaged in litigation (and threats of litigation) premised on his claim of being Satoshi.
Wright has other vexatious litigation outstanding which won't be automatically resolved due to this case, sadly, including another case against most of the same open source contributors where he is claiming billions in damages due to us not introducing a backdoor into bitcoin to "recover" billions of dollars worth of coins which he claims to have lost the keys to.
I haven't read this case but much of the time that courts are deciding weird looking statements like "this person didn't cheat at this video game" or "Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto" it's in defamation cases. I say "coding123 is a big poopy head" so you sue me saying that I defamed you. In most countries truth is a defence for defamation, so if I can prove that you are in fact a big poopy head then I can defend myself from the suit. That means that a court has to determine the truth of a statement that doesn't seem like a thing that courts should be worrying about
He keeps suing people for defamation that say he's not Satoshi. Just another case of a guy who needs attention but can't get it in a more positive way.
There are multiple cases which aren't automatically dismissed due to this loss, including the defamation claim against Hodlonaut and the case over open source developers owing wright a fiduciary duty to author, publish, and (somehow) enforce a back door to recover billions of dollars worth of coins he says he lost the keys to.
As far as appeals go, determinations of fact are generally not appealable unless there was a clear error. Permission to appeal would have to be sought and aren't automatic.
If the judgement and remedies aren't forceful enough in this case, Wright may just begin the same litigation from another jurisdiction. On the stand he basically said that if he loses he will begin litigation on patent infringement grounds-- it isn't like having a baseless position has ever stopped him before.
To some extent it depends more on his funders willingness to keep financing him than anything else... he's given every sign that so long as he's funded and not incarcerated he'll keep it up.
