Sad news ... (... or not ;-)) (http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/current/msg
At 6:57 PM -0400 on 10/6/98, Petro wrote:>
Who owns the patents, Digicash, or Chaum?> DigiCash, Inc., of the US of A, not DigiCash BV, of the Netherlands.> Cheers,> Bob Hettinga
Uhm, strange: I thought that the main attraction of a Dutch company was the lack of withholding tax on royalty payments made to non-residents, that, combined with the tax treaties between The Netherlands and most countries (which allow tax-free payment from those countries to the Dutch company), makes it an ideal vehicle to receive royalties on a (almost) tax-free basis. But if the patents were held by Digicash Inc., what was the point of having Digicash BV? Enzo
At 4:08 AM -0400 on 10/7/98, Enzo Michelangeli wrote:
But if the patents were held by Digicash Inc., what was the point of having Digicash BV?
Ah. But they weren't originally. Originally, the patents were held by David
Chaum, and licensed to DigiCash, BV. When they finally ran out of investors
in DigiCash BV, an investor group headed by Nicholas Negroponte said they'd
invest in a new company, domiciled in the US, but only if Chaum signed his
rights over to the US company.
Having just written that, it starts to make somewhat convoluted sense. Buy
the Dutch company from the shareholders for some small sum, pay most of the
"real" creditors, roll it up, making the investors and some of the
creditors (wanna bet they're software contractors?) take the hit for what's
left, and start the new company in the US with, technically, a clean
financial slate -- and control of the patent.
Curioser and curioser. Makes me wonder, though, whether after all this
financial prestidigitation they're going to have any room left for jello.
:-).
Cheers,
Bob Hettinga
-----------------
Robert A. Hettinga
participants (2)
-
Enzo Michelangeli -
Robert Hettinga