[thayne]

I wouldn't call getting the profits from the corporation (whether through dividends or "royalties"), and having the power to choose the board of directors as "nothing". And the stated purpose of the corporation is to further the "public benefit" of the foundation.

Sure they are separate organizations, but they are at least a little related.

[TheRealPomax]

They don't, though. The only money they get from corp is the brand license fee, which in good "we have a corp and non-profit" tradition is fluid but can't exceed a specific amount, and they only "have the power to choose the board" on paper. In reality, the only thing that ties the two orgs together are Surman and Baker.

[m55au]

The corp is a subsidiary. It is irrelevant if and how long you worked there for, the parent company has the financial and legal control over all the subsidiaries. The foundation literally owns the corporation, no need for quotation marks. If they have not or do not exercise that control or interfere in the day-to-day life today, that does not mean they will not do it tomorrow or whenever it becomes necessary. When shit hits the fan all that matters is what's on the paper.

I can also say, that my hypothetical landlord has nothing to do with the place I have lived in for 10 years. So therefore they do not "own" it.