From: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 09:10:26 +0800
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <QQagbr09478.199603080046@relay3.UU.NET>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Thu, 7 Mar 1996, Duncan Frissell wrote:

> However, a CA operating outside the licensing structure of current CA's
> would have very low costs and hence no investment to lose in litigation.
> Costs would be almost entirely marketing related and as long as you stayed
> out of jurisdictions with some of the new CA law, no regulatory costs or
> barriers.
> 

I don't think this is definitional.  If nothing else they can take the 
equipment.  If you don't incorporate, your personal assets are at risk; 
if you do, you have to keep a real separation between the corporation and 
yourself, pay the taxes, etc.  Ok, make it a non-profit labor of love; 
low risks, no returns, then maybe you are right.  Just hope that there ar 
no punitive or large consequential damages, and no one pierces the 
corporate veil (unlikely, I admit, but not impossible).

What law applies to a certificate used in a multi-jurisdictional
transaction is less obvious to me than I would like.  I think I have
talked a student in my seminar into writing a paper to educate me. 

[The above may have been dictated with Dragon Dictate/Win 2.0 voice 
recognition. Be alert for unintentional strange word substitutions.]

A. Michael Froomkin        | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)
Associate Professor of Law | 
U. Miami School of Law     | froomkin@law.miami.edu
P.O. Box 248087            | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin
Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here.