Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

co-inc

0 views
Skip to first unread message

FatherMcKenzie

unread,
Dec 19, 2009, 10:23:53 AM12/19/09
to
Che differnza passa tra una sociert� "corporation" e una "incorporated"?
--
P�s g�r ho ait�n lamb�nei, ka� ho zet�n heur�skei, ka� t� kro�onti
anoig�setai
(Euagg�lion kat� Lo�kan 11,10)

Joseph Curtin

unread,
Dec 19, 2009, 10:49:20 AM12/19/09
to

"FatherMcKenzie" <james.l...@MENOinfinito.it> wrote in message
news:hgir68$ni4$1...@tdi.cu.mi.it...

> Che differnza passa tra una sociert� "corporation" e una "incorporated"?
> --
>

Time Inc. (Incorporated) is a large media organization which is a
corporation.
It became incorporated in 1922.

Joe from Massachusetts


Joseph Curtin

unread,
Dec 19, 2009, 11:30:58 AM12/19/09
to

"Joseph Curtin" <josc...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:9C6Xm.78401$Zu5....@newsfe24.iad...

"Time, Inc." is a large media company which happens to be incorporated. It
is also the name under which it does business.
Are you really asking what the difference is between "XXX", Inc., and
"XXX.Co. ?
"Company" ("Co."). may be used in the name under which the business
(company) or corporation does business, as may "Incorporated" ("Inc."). A
business may or may not be incorporated.
"The New York Times Company" is the name under which the New York Times
Corporation does business.
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/opinion/22tue1.html
http://www.nytco.com/

Joe from Massachusetts

Joseph Curtin

unread,
Dec 19, 2009, 11:43:44 AM12/19/09
to

"Joseph Curtin" <josc...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:9d7Xm.3553$2A7....@newsfe07.iad...

Also of interest:
http://entrepreneurs.about.com/od/businessstructure/a/doingbusinessas.htm

Joe from Massachusetts


FatherMcKenzie

unread,
Dec 19, 2009, 12:14:04 PM12/19/09
to
Joseph Curtin ha scritto:

> Are you really asking what the difference is between "XXX", Inc., and
> "XXX.Co. ?

Yes, e.g. Canon inc. and Nikon corporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_(company)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon

Joseph Curtin

unread,
Dec 19, 2009, 5:15:37 PM12/19/09
to

"FatherMcKenzie" <james.l...@MENOinfinito.it> wrote in message
news:hgj1ks$ste$1...@tdi.cu.mi.it...

> Joseph Curtin ha scritto:
> > Are you really asking what the difference is between "XXX", Inc., and
> > "XXX.Co. ?
>
> Yes, e.g. Canon inc. and Nikon corporation
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_(company)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon
>
>

Canon and Nikon are both corporations. People may refer to "the Canon
Company", but this title does not give any indication as to how the company
is organized, only that it is a business. Some companies like to use the
name "Company" in the name under which they do business, like the corporate
entity doing business as the "New York Times Company". "Company", unlike
"Incorporated", does not indicate anything in particular about the company's
financial structure.

Joe from Massachusetts


ADPUF

unread,
Dec 19, 2009, 6:27:41 PM12/19/09
to
FatherMcKenzie, 18:14, sabato 19 dicembre 2009:

> Joseph Curtin ha scritto:
>> Are you really asking what the difference is between "XXX",
>> Inc., and "XXX.Co. ?
>
> Yes, e.g. Canon inc. and Nikon corporation
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_(company)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon


Ma credo che la legislazione e gli usi in materia di forma
legale delle imprese sia differente fra UK, USA, Europa,
Giappone ecc.


--
The two oldest professions in the world have been ruined by
amateurs.
-- G.B. Shaw

Joseph Curtin

unread,
Dec 19, 2009, 11:58:28 PM12/19/09
to

"ADPUF" <flyh...@mosq.it> wrote in message
news:4b2d615a$0$1120$4faf...@reader1.news.tin.it...

> FatherMcKenzie, 18:14, sabato 19 dicembre 2009:
> > Joseph Curtin ha scritto:
> >> Are you really asking what the difference is between "XXX",
> >> Inc., and "XXX.Co. ?
> >
> > Yes, e.g. Canon inc. and Nikon corporation
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_(company)
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon
>
>
> Ma credo che la legislazione e gli usi in materia di forma
> legale delle imprese sia differente fra UK, USA, Europa,
> Giappone ecc.
>
>

I think that "company" in the US is similar to "ditta" in Italy. I think
both are vague descriptors.

Joe from Massachusetts


mymo

unread,
Dec 20, 2009, 4:13:07 PM12/20/09
to
Joseph Curtin ha scritto:
Credo che "company" stia piￜ generalmente per "societￜ". La "ditta" dal
punto di vista giuridico ￜ il nome che l'imprenditore spende nello
svolgimento degli affari e viene molto spesso utilizzata anche da
imprese individuali non costituite sotto forma di "company".
Per quanto riguarda la domanda dell'OP non saprei: che "Inc." stia ad
indicare che la compagnia ￜ sorta da una fusione per incorporazione?

Janis

unread,
Dec 20, 2009, 4:45:34 PM12/20/09
to
"mymo" <mymo.s...@libero.it> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:DrwXm.1117$Ua...@twister2.libero.it...
> Credo che "company" stia pi� generalmente per "societ�".

Giusto.

> Per quanto riguarda la domanda dell'OP non saprei: che "Inc." stia ad

> indicare che la compagnia � sorta da una fusione per incorporazione?

No, vi prego, non fate le traduzioni per assonanza.
Semplicemente, come � stato gi� detto, la legislazione � diversa e se l'OP
vuol capire cosa vuol dire incorporation, inizia su wiki (dove sono certa
che ci sia qualcosa) e poi pu� andare avanti all'infinito.
In termini spicci � una specie di registrazione della societ� con diverse
conseguenze civilistiche.

ciao, Janis


0 new messages