Microsoft-Yahoo Silence Means "We're Negotiating"

Neek said:

Yawn. Their silence could also means that in Yahoo!'s unending efforts to bore Microsoft to death with better and better effectiveness, everyone's already dead. Somebody agree to something already.

joeblow said:

Mar. 30, 12:12 PM

Gosh, Kara... While you were in radio contact, wished you'd asked 'em for me if they were worried about "Invoke-a-doke" or "Chinopoly."

joeblow said:

Mar. 30, 3:05 PM

Go here:

http://video.yahoo.com/

…and search for: “Sometimes we cry.”

Pick up the beat and stay with me now, up strong and loud. Put it in another pane. I’ll sing to you this afternoon, if what I write doesn’t already sing enough. Ah, yes, it does sing, doesn’t it?… Yes, it does.
--
It seems to me that one might think of a merged Yahoo-Microsoft as an entity with two functions: primarily - the creation of the technological means for the expression of content, whether through art, communication, organization, entertainment, exchange, or any of the other elements of human interplay, and, secondarily - the presentation of the former; that is - the formatting and selling of that technological basis for content production.

To my mind, undoubtedly, Yahoo would be far better capable of serving as the second-function centerpiece for the combined entity - the flower arrangement at the table center - for the still powerfully capable yet stodgy example of jazz without the blue note that Microsoft, serving its own primary function, seems to have drifted into being… totally devoid of rhapsody, at least in my opinion.

Up until just the most recent exponential development of the Internet’s capability, Microsoft excelled on its own in both of these functions. Microsoft was dominant in the desktop and in operating systems and held sway even in its earliest Internet participation, albeit after undertaking warfare with NetScape and others, leading to significant anti-trust risk, expense and penalties in doing so, and now most recently with a somewhat poor showing in what is being referred to as Web 2.0.

http://search.yahoo.com/web

… search letter-for-letter: “What is w…”

It’s like I’ve said, they’re like jazz without the blue note… Google, on the other hand, has come onto the scene with a blast of excitement, like Gershwin’s opening clarinet in “Rhapsody in Blue” was also a herald of big changes ahead in the old ways of doing things.

I think they’re awake now though, Kara, and “never ever” is a long time to hold out a bet. It’s like writing a naked call with no maturity. Change just a few words in Article 512 of the DMCA and the whole world might flip upside down… faster than you can say “takedown notice.”

Too, just the application of a little semblance of creativity (“Live Search” is about as exciting as a cardboard sandwich) that might come from an inspired revamping of marketing a merged Yahoo-Microsoft could also flip things along and surprise many.

Microsoft’s been to the table for humble pie… Unless I miss my guess, the mystical “Vision Quest” reported to have happened now nearing 3 weeks ago might have been as much a revelation for Microsoft as it was a reality check for Yahoo.

Yahoo’s got some rhapsody in their blood… Microsoft just needs a blood transfusion. Yahoo just needs a Lovin’ Sugar Daddy. They’ll make a happy couple… a marriage Seinfeld wouldn’t want to wait out.

Quit your mouth-watering, Kara... I don't think you'll get a breakup book out of this one.

Stockster said:

Mar. 30, 3:07 PM

This is just a Yahoo pumper article. How many times has there been silence, and it has meant nothing? Yang's reckless behavior and mismanagement, along with his golden parachutes, poison pills, and his recent questionable acquisitions and agreements with other companies have been calculated to turn MSFT off even more. MSFT will probably walk away from this soon.

anon said:

Mar. 30, 5:22 PM

Kara Swisher doesn't know jack fucking shit. Why does her name appear on so many blogs?

She's not an investigative journalist.
She's not an insider.
She's not connected.
She doesn't know what's going on.

Her post from her own blog just days before the Microsoft-Yahoo! announcement broke:
http://kara.allthingsd.com/20080111/microhoo-yabay-no-deal/

Aren't there a lot more pundits, journalists or tech writers more deserving of space to talk about their efforts and ideas or is Kara safe because she's a proven, consistent loser?

joeblow said:

Mar. 30, 6:09 PM

Yahoo search this:

"What does Core 'NGrato mean"

Marah Marie (URL) said:

Mar. 30, 6:36 PM

@ anon...Yes, the "why is Kara relevant" question, my favorite one. I've often wondered myself, but I don't ask anymore...last time I knocked Kara here, Henry video-interviewed her the next morning. Last time I knocked Jason Calacanis here, SAI had him guest-blog. I can't knock anyone it seems without getting them a job or at least a bigger mention than usual at SAI, so I just stay quiet (maybe I should start knocking myself - will SAI hire me to make up for my scathing self-review?).

Kara's style is not to my liking, and her content *usually* does not warrant the attention it gets, IMO - she does occasionally chase down and break a good story - but that's the only good thing I can say about her and not feel like I'm being untrue to my opinion. Maybe people enjoy her analysis of current events, and more power to them if they do, but like I said, she's not really doing it for me.

Background on Kara, you-can-Google-it: she wrote a very well-known and mostly praiseful book about AOL and Steve Case years ago, giving her her initial notoriety/fame online and off.

joeblow said:

Mar. 30, 7:09 PM

MM,

Tell me if I'm wrong, but, the mere mention of AOL/TW or any current, recently dead or prehistoric references to it, in mineral, biological or metaphysical form... probably gets you in the shower, made up and dressed, ready for Sunday School surmonizin'?

I figure mentionin' AOL/TW would be the equivalent of echo-location for you... to a far better degree than lat/lon satellite geo-positionin' to within mere inches on the rotatin' earth.

I furtherfigure that were you attached to my car, strangely hidden from view, or possibly in the trunk with mouth taped and arms tied, and the car stolen, that, were I to squawk out "AOL/TW!" that I could just instruct the po-lice to track your comments when you surfaced them on the Internet to my criminal assaultants and therefore re-cover my vehicle.

Zat 'bout riite?

Feedback Secrets (URL) said:

Mar. 30, 10:54 PM

Interesting way to generate speculation on Yahoo stocks, unfortunately the hype is sooo yesterday! With the stock languishing at $28-29 at the present moment, maybe some poor investors would be suckered into rushing for this deadbeat stock again.

joeblow said:

Mar. 31, 4:26 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUeMh979Q3Q

Marah Marie (URL) said:

Mar. 31, 11:41 PM

joeblow,

The mere mention of AOL could bring me back from the dead. It's one of the few subjects I never tire of. Why? Because people talk about it and write about it and know nothing about it at all. Or their bias toward AOL puts blinders on them until they cannot see the company and the people and products behind it too clearly.

In a way this is comparable to preaching. I'm trying to convert people away from thinking they *need* to use AOL or to defend AOL the company when they don't deserve it. I also step in when people need to stop bashing AOL for a bit of gossip or a study or some report that just isn't true, because my need for the truth to be spoken swings both ways.

I missed my calling as either a teacher or a lawyer - not sure which - but I think I enjoy ed-u-cat-ing people more than ar-gu-ing with them, so discussing AOL fills that need for me.

joeblow said:

Apr. 01, 4:13 AM

And so the Tue morning trash talk, supposedly connected to MSFT sources, is that they have no plans to raise the bid.

Okay, tell us something we didn't already know. It's maybe the second or third time they've said that, while at the same time also explaining that Yahoo hasn't come to the table yet.

Apparently the 'Vision Quest' 3 weeks ago has been their ownly formal meeting if reports can be considered accurate.

Of COURSE there's no reason for MSFT to bid against themselves. It would take idiots to do that until Yahoo throws up an ask price and sets down at the table. Too, Ballmer has said they'd have to open the books for a limited audit and I suppose this reporting now means that hasn't happened yet either.

Nothing new... it just means Yahoo hasn't decided to negotiate yet. But they wrote up MSFT's objectives in their 8K, so in that action they probably acknowledged they eventually would negotiate for some price.

However, lacking cooperation from Yahoo's management, whether MSFT would have to raise the bid or not is not up to MSFT "strategists" but rather to the Yahoo shareholders.

My guess is that some of the bigger ones are now likely to sound off with "sources close to" leaks of their own, or outright quotes.

joeblow said:

Apr. 01, 4:19 AM

I asked readers in the just prior topic of discussion to find the following:

http://yhoo.client.shareholder.com/sec.cfm?DocType=&DocTypeExclude=&SortOrder=FilingDate%20Descending&Year=&Pagenum=16

…and to find and select the: 8-K/A Amended Current Report, dated Oct 27, 2005. I’ll now again refer to the Yahoo/Alibaba/SoftBank Shareholders Agreement filed within that document.
--
If you’ll refer to the agreement and find in it: “5. Voting Agreement and 5.1 Voting of Shares,” you’ll see that the below is an entire quote of that part of the agreement (begin quoting):

5. Voting Agreement. 5.1 Voting of Shares. Yahoo hereby agrees that, during the period from the date hereof until the earliest of ( a ) the date on which the Company or JM waives any of the provisions of the standstill arrangement as set forth in Section 8.1 hereof, ( b ) the consummation of an IPO, ( c ) the fifth anniversary of the Closing, ( d ) JM ceasing to be CEO or a comparable executive officer of the Company, ( e ) JM ceasing to own at least 1% of the outstanding Ordinary Shares on a Fully Diluted Basis, ( f ) such time as the Voting Agreement Shares is reduced to or below zero, and (g) the Management Members’ Representative notifying Yahoo and the Company of its election to terminate this Section 5, Yahoo (in its capacity as a shareholder) will appear at any Shareholders meeting or otherwise cause the Voting Agreement Shares to be counted as present thereat for purposes of establishing a quorum and vote or consent (or cause to be voted) the Voting Agreement Shares as directed in writing by the Management Members’ Representative not less than five Business Days before the meeting is held or consent is executed. At any general meeting, the chairman of the meeting may deem the votes attached to the Voting Agreement Shares to have been voted in accordance with this Article. (end quoting)
--
I would imagine that from Jack Ma’s (JM) perspective that among the itemized list of “earliest” occurring “dates” represented by elements (a) through (g) that he would likely anticipate that (c), “the fifth anniversary of the Closing” (which I think would be in October of 2010 since they closed in October of 2005), would be least under his control for permitting the resumption of Yahoo’s privilege of voting its own shares in Alibaba. From the date of Yahoo’s agreement with SoftBank and Alibaba until that date just identified (or any of the other itemized dates that were to occur earlier), Yahoo is obliged to vote their shares under the direction of Alibaba’s management.

Had there been no Microsoft proposal to acquire Yahoo, Ma would still face the prospect of losing his ability to direct Yahoo’s voting beginning not later than October of 2010. Therefore, if he did not elect to buy back Yahoo’s Alibaba shares upon notice by Yahoo of a potential transfer of its Alibaba stake to Microsoft, and if the referenced agreement were merely assigned to Microsoft as Yahoo’s successor in some subsequent merger, and not modified in any way, then he might view Microsoft’s right to vote the shares in 2010 quite differently than he would have viewed Yahoo voting them.

Whether that is true or not, recent news reports hint at the possibility that he would not want the Chinese authorities (regardless of China’s Antimonopoly overtures) to view him as having the potential to lose voting control of Alibaba to Microsoft, or for that matter to any foreign corporation. The merger proposal has just put a greater focus on it, particularly since a merger would most likely require Yahoo to offer the shares to Ma and SoftBank.

Still, I would expect that they’d even begin to get antsy without any Yahoo-Microsoft merger as Yahoo neared the date it could vote its own shares, especially now that Jerry Yang has been called before Congress (while being on the board of Alibaba, even if only as a non-voting token member) for allowing a former Yahoo China subsidiary to surrender information to Chinese authorities about political dissidents in China. While Yang was getting a tongue-lashing in Congress, Ma was probably getting a bit nervous about Alibaba’s affiliation with Yang.

Remember, I’ve pointed out that control of what foreign or domestic corporations do or say in the realm of politics in China is likely of greater importance to the Chinese authorities than are the ordinary commercial anti-trust issues of competition and access to markets. They can’t be happy about Yang’s involvement with Alibaba’s board at the same time Yang is helping to raise issues about human rights violations in China. They’d be even less happy if he had voting control of Yahoo’s Alibaba stake.

I suspect that if Microsoft is successful in acquiring Yahoo, and Alibaba could be persuaded not to buy back its prorated portion of the 39% stake owned by Yahoo, that it might only be persuaded a-f-t-e-r a re-negotiation of the terms of the referenced agreement, probably in the form of an extension of Ma’s privilege of voting the newly merged Yahoo-Microsoft’s same Alibaba stake. I suspect that such an extension (and particularly if greatly extended) would make not only Ma happy, but also placate the Chinese authorities (both primary and antimonopoly) as well since Microsoft would have no ability to control Alibaba in the interim period, if ever. Of course SoftBank is an interested party in this agreement as well.

So, we’ll see. Microsoft and Yahoo may merge or they may not. Who yet can know? And if they do, Ma or SoftBank, or both, may buy back their prorated portion of Yahoo’s Alibaba stake, or they may not. However, my guess is that if a merged Yahoo-Microsoft ends up keeping its Alibaba stake, that agreement I’ve referenced is going to have to get modified in some substantial way in order to accomplish it… and not just assigned intact to the successor merged company.

I haven’t intended here to either attack or defend China – China’s culture and its people are ancient and noble - but merely to couch the practical nature of the obvious. They’re an infant still in their experimentation with capitalism, but they’re no baby when it comes to their authoritarian rule over the PRC. In that sense they’re sort of a hybrid between what we know to be socialist economies and what we remember as being pure communist ones such as the former Stalinist Soviet Union and China under Mao (and I suppose North Korea today), but the difference is that socialism is capitalism with a touch of communist influence, but for quite a long time to come China will still be communism attempting to maintain control, but just aided by limited free-market capitalism.

Because of that, Congress is just wasting its time calling Yang on the carpet to try to explain why these two economic and governmental systems can’t be perfectly commingled in every respect… They’d do as well to set up a hearing in the parking lot of any Wal-Mart and ask random shoppers the same questions, or one at the dockside of any U.S. seaport.

Just be careful though… watch out for the swinging containerized shipping units being off-loaded from ships arriving from China, or the empty containers and scrap steel being on-loaded to ships bound back there.

Microsoft Traffic (URL) said:

Apr. 04, 12:19 AM

Yahoo is under performing and
undervalued company.

Only Microsoft will save it.

Microsoft + Yahoo = Goodbye G o o gle

As you can see Jerry Yang and Steve
Ballmer's smiling faces as they shake
their hands on the air...

That means... Let's close the DEAL!

anon said:

May. 04, 6:52 PM

Kara Swisher is a degenerate moron loser and a hairy lesbian. How did this loser low-level employee who has no journalistic skills or connections become a source on what is going on at Yahoo! or Microsoft?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/24456247

With Microsoft now walking away from its unsolicited bid for Yahoo, new details are emerging as to just how bizarre these negotiations -- or lack thereof -- have been since Microsoft first made the deal public three months ago.

Piecing together a time-line with sources familiar with the negotiations, it appears that Yahoo spent much of its time ignoring Microsoft's overtures.

te alabo said:

Sep. 02, 6:10 AM

flv converter for mac
Do not worry your videos that can not playback on Mac now! wmv converter for mac is really the best solution for you . and we got swf converter.

wowgolds987 (URL) said:

Sep. 06, 4:02 AM

Place an order for wow gold on www.mmoinn.com is the best and securest way to power level your character to your desired high level fast. We have an outstanding world of cheapest wow gold experience. We have done a great number of orders for cheapest wow gold and have hundreds of orders for wow gold wow currently. We are sure that you cant get such an outstanding cheapest wow gold service as the same as we do. Our guys for cheapest wow gold are skilled gamers for years. They know how to power level your character in your satisfied way.

friend said:

Sep. 09, 5:13 PM