Assuming that a brainet composed of various individuals can be thought of legally in terms similar to a "corporation" or other legal entity (though it IS NOT such an entity for argument's sake), what are the factors that could be used to determine the title/status of such an entity (if it can be defined as an "entity") in our current legal system?
Note: I was not yet able to add the tags [brainet] [title] and [legal]. Please feel free to correct the tags for this question if you are able to do so.
Scientist recently connected the brains of monkeys to a computer and gave the primates a collaborative task. From this research it was noted that the primates were able (without a direct connection to each other) to synchronize their thought patterns and accomplish the given task (to move a ball on a screen) by coordinating various limited muscular thought patterns. When the scientists later connected the brains of mice, also providing direct channels between the brains of the mice, the mice similarly coordinated their brain activity to perform a given task. The researchers referred to this synchronized metal state as a "superbrain" and thus the term "brainet" was coined to describe such a mental state. When trained to synchronize their brain activity, the mice were able to produce the "superbrain" state 61% of the time.
Given the limited nature (isolation of specific input from each primate) of the initial experiment and the resulting classification of a new mental state after the second experiment, it would appear as though there exists the potential for a new classification of entity composed of humans using similar means of brain connectivity (and perhaps at various levels of connectivity). This question relates to the legal ramifications of the existence of such an entity, the existence, use and possible regulation of such technology and how specifically this may impact society.