zlacker

Corporations aren’t people, my friend

>>notnau+(OP)
The persons are the core team of OpenAI maybe?

>>notnau+(OP)
Corporations definitely count as legal persons, with obligations and rights.

This gave us the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310, i case on their right to speech or place funds.

>>notnau+(OP)
All money streams lead to people in the end.

>>notnau+(OP)
In the US they are, thanks to Citizens United.

>>eftych+01
> Corporations definitely count as legal persons, with obligations and rights.

I am not a lawyer, I am cynical

Corporations count as legal persons when it benefits them

>>eftych+01
It even predates Citizens United, 1 U.S. Code § 1 (introduced by The Dictionary Act in 1871) defines Corporations as people.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1

>>pionar+o2
> In the US they are, thanks to Citizens United.

The idea of corporations as legal persons predates the United States. English law recognised trade guilds and religious orders as legal persons as early as the 14th century. There is nothing specifically American about the idea at all-the US inherited it from English law, as did all other common law countries-and English law didn’t invent it either, similar concepts existed in mediaeval Catholic canon law (religious orders as legal persons) and even in Ancient Roman law (which granted legal personhood to pre-Christian priestly colleges)

>>djbusb+J
Usually the person who paid for everything is entitled to some of the profit. Telling him it is a donation to a non profit seems legally hilarious?

>>stalle+Vr
> even predates Citizens United

It goes back to 1886 [1]. Ditching corporate personhood just makes the law convoluted for no gain. (Oh, you forgot to say corporations in your murder or fraud statute? Oh no!)

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

>>theend+MG
Musk didn't pay for everything. He took his money and left, upset that OpenAI wouldn't let him run it. It was precisely because Musk stopped funding them that OpenAI were forced to seek outside investors and change their corporate structure to be able to offer them a return on the investment.

>>HarHar+dW
The text says he donated more millions after he left.

Is it normal in startup world to dranatically(?) change the formula for investment and donation rounds?

It sounds like, i donate to a soup kitchen for the homeless and a high end restaurant chain comes out the other end. Complete with investors.

Curious what the court might find. It is certainly interesting drama (again)

>>worik+43
True. When’s the last time a corporation had to go to prison.

>>eftych+01
It gives rights, not obligations, which makes Citizens United so abhorrent. It's a dark money vehicle, and worse - foreign dark money. Just on the face of it its ridiculous, but alas, laws are made by the ultra rich.

A corporation has the right to "speech" but if crimes are committed, rest assured it will not go to jail, and neither will its executives, protected by layers of legal indirection of this "person corporation".

>>theend+S81
Obviously this was originally presented as a non-profit, so not a normal startup by any means, but certainly it is normal for startups to "pivot" direction early on and end up doing something completely different than what they initially said. I'm not sure at what point this might upset investors, but I believe the idea is that they are usually investing in the team as much as the idea.

>>skissa+LG
Fascinating!

Also, the root "corp[us]" literally means "body".

Corporations are Frankensteins, basically.