Slashdot Mirror

Perhaps you might want to actually look into the facts before spouting utterly incorrect suppositions. A quick search of Companies House and two minutes reading of the financials show that less than 25% of the staff earn more than £60,000 a year and the highest paid person at the Raspberry Pi Foundation in the 2017 (last year will full published accounts) earned less that £150,000 in the year, on a little over £28,000,000 in turnover. Over at Raspberry Pi (Trading) Ltd. Eben Upton takes no salary and his wife Liz (who runs communications) earned £38,984 in the year and they paid out just over £11.5K in expenses to Dr. Upton. Assuming that "the executives who run it" are the highest paid people there, they hardly seem to be making themselves "rich". In Silicon Valley that would be considered a substance wage.

Another good example is the UK registry of limited companies. Here are the names of the directors of Tesco (a large supermarket) for all to see. How does that differ from whois ?

"registerd[sic] address 66 Allport Road, Cannock, WS11 1DY."

Look like a total bunch of geniuses.

This Genius, maybe?

Maybe this genius:

https://www.facebook.com/steph...

Yes, simply put, what this organisation is claiming to do is illegal, however, judging by the amount of Lorem Ipsum on the site, the lack of any pricing et. al. I think it's highly likely that this whole thing is a scam, or just a snake oil peddler.

I work in the fraud/credit industry and can categorically state that you cannot simply just do what these people are claiming to do without undergoing serious compliance efforts. First and foremost is the fact that they're engaging in financial services by including credit risk worthiness, and this would require them to register with the UK's Financial Conduct Authority, however there is no registration at the address on the website as a financial services company:

https://register.fca.org.uk/sh...

This is despite the fact that they MUST acquire permission to operate in this industry from the FCA and undergo necessary compliance checks, see here:

https://www.the-fca.org.uk/aut...

The relevant listing is "providing credit information services".

The company is however genuinely registered so isn't a complete hoax:

https://beta.companieshouse.go...

Beyond the financial aspect of professing to evaluate people's financial worthiness amongst other criteria the amount of detail they're collecting would appear to place them in clear breach of the data protection act in general also.

In recent years the reality is that there is actually a lot of oversight in the UK of companies providing financial services, in large part as a result of the excesses of the 00s and the mis-selling, the financial crisis et. al., the predatory payday loans companies that profited from people etc. For precisely this reason you cannot simply start a company and start bandying about financial data like credit risk as these guys profess to with absolutely no oversight.

Anyone in their right mind would steer clear of this company both as an investor, and as a customer. Again, if it is doing what it says it is doing, then it is operating outside the law.

"registerd[sic] address 66 Allport Road, Cannock, WS11 1DY."

Look like a total bunch of geniuses.

This Genius, maybe?

His linkedin BS

and
this one

As far as I can tell, is this charming fellow here
(captcha: deplore...how apposite.)

and
this one

"registerd[sic] address 66 Allport Road, Cannock, WS11 1DY."

Look like a total bunch of geniuses.

This Genius, maybe?

> There's a reason the UK banned them several centuries ago.

Here's the government web site explaining how you form a corporation in the UK:
http://www.companieshouse.gov....

Here are the corporate tax rates in the UK:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/c...

> those running it choose to be above the law, no one does time.
Jeffrey Skilling 24 years in prison, Andrew Fastow 6 years, Bernard Ebbers 25 years, Bernie Madoff 150 years, John Rigas 15 years, Timothy Rigas 20 years, Dennis Kozlowski 8 years, Mark Swartz 8 years, Jack Abramoff 6 years ...

I don't think they have shareholders. It's a private limited company, number 3299668 if anyone wants to see for themselves on http://companieshouse.gov.uk/

Ok, so I spoke to an expert in company law today about this, and basically the rules on multi-jurisdiction incorporation come down to whatever each country's laws say. So you can have a company operating in different jurisdictions, provided it complies with the rules for incorporation in both countries.

Obviously is is possible for a company to work in different countries, otherwise how would it be able to set up/own/run a subsidiary in that country.

Do you mean to say that if the court in India order Google India to share private emails of American Senators, Google USA has to comply,since these are "same entities"? Keep in mind, that by undergoing incorporation in India, Google India is obligated to follow India's jurisdiction.

I'm going to use the Google UK because I have better access to UK legal and corporate stuffs, so here we go, after some digging:

So, the UK version is Google UK Ltd (a private company limited by shares). You can find details at Companies House (the site doesn't seem to like linking). According to this site, Google UK Ltd is wholly owned by Google International LLC (a US limited liability company). According to this document (and the previous site, but this is probably more reliable; there's at least one mistake/out of date bit of info on that one), Google International LLC is wholly owned by Google Inc (the US public company).

Aren't group structures fun...

So, let's say Google UK Ltd breaks English law, the principle of incorporation probably means that any judgment can only be enforced against Google UK Ltd. However, were an English court to issue a judgment against Google Inc, they might be able enforce it against Google UK Ltd (due to it being an asset of Google International LLC and thus of Google Inc. That will depend on the various rules of tracing etc.

Now, can Google Inc be sued in the UK? Probably. While not conclusive, there is this case. In this one, Google Inc and Google UK Ltd were sued for defamation under English law. At paragraph 2, the court notes that Google Inc is a US-registered company, and at paragraph 4, that Google UK Ltd was "improperly joined" to the proceedings, so aren't relevant. Google Inc had applied to the court to not exercise its jurisdiction (under CPR 11(1) and (6) - if you want more details, examples of when claim forms can be served out of jurisdiction - that is, on foreign persons - can be found in 6D PD 3.1 here).

It's not conclusive because the court decided not to exercise its jurisdiction because it didn't think the claim had a decent chance of success, rather than because it didn't think it had jurisdiction. However, it may be being appealed.

Anyway, so yes; if court in the UK ordered Google UK Ltd (or Google Inc) to hand over private emails of US senators, either Google would be required to do so, or face a fine for contempt of court (which, if made against Google Inc might be enforceable by seizing Google UK Ltd, as an asset of Google Inc - but probably wouldn't work the other way around unless there was a statutory method of going back up the chain). It could try to dispute jurisdiction, but could lose.

International law doesn't really come into it, as it is all done within each country's own jurisdiction (and international law is fairly wishy-washy anyway).

So... erm, yes, isn't law fun, or something?

However, you're wrong on this preventing namespace collisions - companies are allowed to have the same name so long as they are in completely different lines of business (so there is no confusion).

Actually you are wrong, you are confusing this with trademark law.

From Companies house:

You may not be able to incorporate your chosen company name if it is the 'same as' another name appearing on the registrar's index of company names. There is an exception to this if an existing company (or LLP or other body on the index) is part of the same group as your company and consents to the use of your proposed name

You are however correct that not all companies use their registered names as their trading name

I know that for example in GB you can get a Ltd. for a few hundred pounds and 1 pound of required minimal capital. But that's not something that you ultimately want: nobody will trust such a company enough to make business with it in good faith. So this required minimum capital is actually a good thing.

It's even less than that, see the Government site. £20 for a registration in 8-10 days, £50 ($80) for a same day registration, if you send them the form by 15:00. A few friends of mine have done the £20 + £1 version for their mobile app companies, just by following guides online, but no one needs to trust them.

The press release says "Should the race for funds not succeed, The Document Foundation will use the donations to incorporate itself in a different country that requires less capital stock, such as the United Kingdom." -- presumably a UK foundation with, say, £30000 would be OK.

In Britain there are naming rules that require names be unique, none infringing, don't imply a connection to government or royalty, are not offensive, or confusing (e.g. Limited ltd). There are certain additional rules when you include words like Vet, Doctor, Solicitor etc. in your company name.

Even with the rules it doesn't stop some scummy ambulance chasing companies trying to pass themselves off as official sounding accident boards and such like.

That's the list for Limited Liability Partnerships (the equivalent of a limited company for lawyers, accountants, etc.)

Probably more relevant to Slashdotters is the limited company list. Which is actually quite similar.

Accredited, Auditor General for Wales, Bank, British, House of Lords, University,

and so on. A general rule of thumb - if it has the potential to mislead you probably need to get some permission.

As for the whole privacy issue: I would suggest that someone start a website ala Wikileaks, where they publish everything known about every corporation, and make that publically accessible. If I want to know the BP CEO's home address, how much he makes, his social security number, yadda yadda, then perhaps there will be more concern over privacy.

As BP is a UK company, that website exists: The Registrar of Companies. I didn't see a US equivalent form a very brief googling however numerous organisations appear attempting to offer similar information.

From 1 October 2009 directors can provide a service address instead of their home, but the old documents are still there so you're only out of they moved. Also, at risk persons such as directors of animal testing facilities can apply to have their address withdrawn.

Remuneration for individual directors is not always broken down in the statutory accounts but often is in the other guff thrown into the Annual Report, commonly found in the investor section of most public companies' websites. Alternately, buy one share and you are entitled to demand to inspect the statutory books (held either at HQ or "SAIL" address) and attend the AGM, where you'll get details and be entitled to vote on the directors' remuneration. In practice voting is often done by a show of hands unless someone requests a proper count or it is close, so sometimes you're one share counts the same as the guy with 1m sitting beside you.

It is extraordinarily unusual for any company in the UK, other than your employer, to hold our equivalent of the social security number so that's not a reasonable request.

On a fundamental level, I disagree that making information about CEOs public will help in any way. Director's information is already easily available, and thus they have no incentive towards privacy. If their information was private, then they would be more inclined to keep it that way.

When setting up a company in the UK your name is also restricted, though notably they do not include "bank" as sensitive, I assume in recognition of the variety of uses. The principle is a good one - people often assume an element of legitimacy to a limited company and assume they are somehow "approved". A limited company effectively makes a bargain with society: its investors enjoy limited liability but in return must conform to certain rules and make certain information public. Does any such bargain exist for domains?

OK, the site has an "about" page with a Toronto address, and an address for a US office:

269 S. Beverly Drive, #1070
Beverly Hills, CA 90212

This turns out to be Beverly Hills Postal Place, a mail drop. It's in California, so they're subject to California law.

California has a right of publicity law: (a) Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent, ... shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof. In addition, in any action brought under this section, the person who violated the section shall be liable to the injured party or parties in an amount equal to the greater of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) or the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the unauthorized use, and any profits from the unauthorized use that are attributable to the use and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages.... Punitive damages may also be awarded to the injured party or parties. The prevailing party in any action under this section shall also be entitled to attorney's fees and costs.

That seems to apply here.

Small claims court would seem to be appropriate. Once you file a suit, you can send a subpoena to the mail drop company to get the actual name and address of the box owner.

"JLove" is supposedly a unit of "Only Media Group LLC" in Toronto, but neither JLove nor Only Media are listed with California corporation search or Dun and Bradstreet for the US or Canada. But a contact page for JLove affiliates leads to "Billing Provided By: Only Media UK LTD, 7 Petworth Road, Haslemere, Surrey, GU272JB". That doesn't match the address filed with Companies House (UK), but that address is an accountant and is also the contact for other companies. The address in Surrey leads to a secondhand furniture shop.

Not to be boring but I'm pretty sure a company in the UK can call itself what it wants regardless of if a company in the states is using that name. Otherwise registering companies would get jolly tricky. This is why my email is googlemail and not gmail. Kind of. I think :) That said, Companies House doesnt seem to list a Majestic Studios.

In any case, yeah, this somewhat blew me away when i read it. They really must be out of their mind. I would absolutely hate to be them right now with the whole worlds gaming population essentially pointing the finger at them and saying 'twats'.

1) prove it

(company secretary) BATH, HARPREET, 37yrs old (Indian National) with an address in CHANDIGARH, India
(director) IVANCIC, VALDI, 37 years old, (swedish national)with an address in HUSKVARNA, Sweden

from Companies House WebCheck

Name & Registered Office:
MEDISON EUROPE LIMITED
27 RUFFETS WOOD
GRAVESEND
KENT
DA12 5JQ
Company No. 06312373


Status: Active
Date of Incorporation: 13/07/2007

Country of Origin: United Kingdom
Company Type: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC(03)):
None Supplied
Accounting Reference Date: 31/07
Last Accounts Made Up To: (NO ACCOUNTS FILED)
Next Accounts Due: 13/05/2009
Last Return Made Up To:
Next Return Due: 10/08/2008

Medison Europe United was incorporated less than 2 weeks ago: http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/02f0dac25c029c53 8688518e70982ba3/compdetails

Also, take a look at the address provided

27 RUFFETS WOOD
GRAVESEND
KENT
DA12 5JQ

My my, Nordic Multimedia Distribution Limited is listed as having the same address: http://www.ukdata.com/company-credit-reports/NORDI C-MULTIMEDIA-DISTRIBUTION-LIMITED.html
GI Finance Limited is located here as well: http://www.simplycreditreports.com/company-number/ 05905858.html
La Vida Art Limited: http://www.companiesgate.co.uk/LA+VIDA+ART+LIMITED .aspx
BYGG Invest Limited: http://www.ukdata.com/company-credit-reports/BYGG- INVEST-LIMITED.html
HG Shiprepair Limited: http://www.companiesgate.co.uk/HG+SHIPREPAIR+LIMIT ED.aspx
Also, Ken-Erik Limited is listed as having the same address: http://www.companiesgate.co.uk/KEN-ERIK+LIMITED.as px

I checked google maps to see if I could locate the address: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=2 7+ruffets+wood,+gravesend,+kent+england&sll=37.062 5,-95.677068&sspn=49.71116,81.738281&ie=UTF8&t=k&z =16&iwloc=addr&om=1

Looks a lot like a residential area, either house/condo/apartment, definatley not a corporate or even industrial location.

Yeah, this is way too good to be true, it's never going to happen.

Links from Engadget that people posted:
http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/02f0dac25c029c53 8688518e70982ba3/compdetails
http://www.ukdata.com/company-credit-reports/NORDI C-MULTIMEDIA-DISTRIBUTION-LIMITED.html
http://www.companiesgate.co.uk/KEN-ERIK+LIMITED.as px
http://www.companiesgate.co.uk/HG+SHIPREPAIR+LIMIT ED.aspx

Check the address of the companies in question. Is there any doubt that this is a scam? Nope.

Isnt the registered office address of any company a matter of public record in the US?

In the UK all limited liability companies have their registered office listed for the public record at Companies House (curiously only available from Monday to Saturday 07:00 - 12 Midnight UK Time).

Granted it's only their legal address and not necessarily where anyone goes on a daily basis (a lot of really small companies use their accountants address) and I think there are some exceptions made e.g. for animal testing companies who are subjected to violent activists.

From Companies House:

RetroCoder Ltd

Web site source code says 'Promise.tv Ltd'
Companies house gives
http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/b09fe60fa8e4ad5f 3ea4d24014a52ce2//compdetails

A quick search on the registered address gives
http://www.touchslough.com/business/list/bid/91560 0

A TV repair centre in Ascot. At least these people will be able to repair the thing when it goes wrong :o)

Being a registered uk Ltd company, companies house has some public data on them:

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/76c266b3e165fd88 87ceeea9b0a0c4ae//compdetails

For example, let's search Google for "london hotels", a common search phrase. The first return is LondonNights.com. "Whois" returns "Worldview Ltd, 16 Marine Road West, Morecambe, LA3 1BS, Lancs, GREAT BRITAIN (UK)."

That's a UK company, so we look it up at Companies House., where we find "WORLDVIEW LIMITED, 16 MARINE ROAD WEST, MORECAMBE, LANCASHIRE LA3 1BS, Company No. 04588973". So we have a match on a registered company.

We check further with Dun and Bradstreet, which has a worldwide database of companies. We find "WORLDVIEW LTD 16 MARINE RD WEST MORECAMBE , UK Type of Location: single"

So they pass company validation, and we can get financial information about them.

Now let's try a domain that just appeared in a spam: "fleagroups.com". "Whois" gives us "Flea Market Groups. 126 73rd Ave N., Coral Springs, Florida 34992. US" So we go to Sunbiz, the Florida State Division of Corporations, and search. No "Flea Market Groups" under fictitions names. No match on address under anything beginning with "Flea". No "Flea Market Groups" under corporations, and no "Flea Market *" address matches.

Looking in Dun and Bradstreet, there are "Flea Market *" hits, but no exact match and no address match.

So they fail company validation. Add to probable spammer list, drop search engine ranking.

This is a reasonable test for any site that appears to be selling something.

what major headlines ? millions of pages !! the world is coming to an end !!!!

a quick whois on threadwatch.org (the submitters site) reveals its hosted by search engine spammers
platinax.co.uk which is registed to a UK "company" called BriteCorp
http://www.britecorp.co.uk/

who offer all the usual SE spamming methods
coincidence ?
a whois on britecorp's platinex site reveals they have removed their address from the whois db, and their websites contact details are a mobile phone number (07963 808470)
further investigation on britecorp reveals they are not a "real" company but trading as "Brian Turner" (pic) and companies house dont seem to have any records of any of these companies, though iam sure further investigation could find out more

so why would a supposedly reputable marketing company have a cell phone as a primary contact point ?
something to hide egh ?
or perhaps local trading standards would like to hear about them and their "services" ?

northern scum by any other name

Microsoft is also a UK company, companies house in Cardiff says so.

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/d4557d64d27789d4 2470e8c8d4261826//compdetails

If you're a European company you have to play by European rules.

Personally for all I care you can take your buggy software and go back to you isolationist "nothing exists outside America" policy. I'm sure you and all the other redknecks will be very happy together.

But they do do business in the UK, therefore there are sanctions the authorities can take. Also I think they are registered with Companies House, but I cannot confirm whether the The SCO Group Limited listed here is the same company.