Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
The completely "open" ability to incorporate to an agreed common purpose is IMHO perhaps the most significant legal breakthrough in the last 100 years, at least.

Limited liability is an add-on, and a morally dubious one if obtained without anything given in exchange.

The LLP allows the same collective/ multilateral ("Joint") action by two or more people with a common purpose as partnership does.

But crucially it does not have the individual/ bilateral ("Several") responsibility of Partnership.

It is, I think, unique in this new synthesis of the collective and the individual. It opens up entirely new "property rights" and "tenure" possibilties.

This "Open Corporate" capability is hugely important IMHO at all levels of enterprise from couples all the way up to governments. There is no area of policy that could not be improved upon through adoption of an "Open Corporate" partnership-based approach, I believe.


"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Nov 13th, 2007 at 09:47:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Wonderful.

Now, back to my question: is it the case, in your understanding, that for the libel and other legal  protections - which you cited as important - to hold, that the documents would have to be issued in the name of ET LLP, by its agents?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 13th, 2007 at 12:14:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If one of the activities of an ET LLP were to be to publish documents either on or off-line then it would be the LLP that would be the "Publisher" and therefore potentially liable for libels by its Members as agents.

In which case the LLP would actually be "doing" something, to wit, publishing.

But it would also be possible for the "Founder"/ Custodian LLP member to be, not Jerome personally, as now, but (say) a "Not for Profit" Company Limited by Guarantee, and for this entity to be the "Publisher" and protected by its own limitation of liability.

In which case the LLP would be the framework defining the legal relationship between the Publisher and the other stakeholders, eg the service provider who operates the platform, and investor "Capital Members", if any.

There is more than one way to skin the cat.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Nov 13th, 2007 at 01:02:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sure, but there's still a cat: a publisher, which would be the personality of the "think-tank" for legal and practical purposes.

My point, is that that publisher should not be seen to speak for ET, and should not be branded as such.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 13th, 2007 at 01:05:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Being as though Jérôme "owns" the ET "brand", projects can use the brand if and only if he agrees.

The problem here is that ET represents a community of people and that Jérôme branding anything else "ET" is bound to find people complaining that the new project is speaking for the community when it shouldn't.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 13th, 2007 at 01:13:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series