[51611] in Cypherpunks
Re: new netscape servers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Froomkin)
Thu Mar 7 15:33:57 1996
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:14:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Froomkin <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
To: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960307143422.0073f934@panix.com>
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.
