[Loxaeed]

Just because Microsoft can't afford to buy Google.

[maniaringsq]

Microsoft said the combination of the two companies would create efficiencies that would save approximately $1 billion annually. The software giant also said that it has an integration plan to include employees of both companies and intends to offer incentives to retain Yahoo employees.

They'll save a billion with no job losses.

Yep.

[cindygirl]

Originally posted by Wezil
They'll save a billion with no job losses.

Yep. At the rate Yahoo is going, there won't be too many jobs to lose.

[frequensearules]

I know MS is trying to beef up its internet real estate portfolio but that seems like a lot of money for a second rate portal and search engine. Then again targeted ads are the future of internet profitability so maybe what they really want is the costumer data base and data mining.

[M_Marked]

Originally posted by Krill
Just because Microsoft can't afford to by Google. haha. GAHAHAHA

ya, i dont ever use yahoo i forgot all about it actually

[Jueqelyl]

Why Microsoft believes this to be a good buy is beyond me. If Yang can't maximize Yahoo's value, does anyone believe Ballmer could do better?

[RildFiemodo]

Originally posted by DanS
Why Microsoft believes this to be a good buy is beyond me. If Yang can't maximize Yahoo's value, does anyone believe Ballmer could do better? Since when did Microsoft buy companies to maximize the target's value?

[mesZibeds]

You can laugh all you want at Yahoo (which I do) and they do suck right now, but they are still in second place when it comes to getting search advertising dollars. You combine that with MS's own third ranked search engine, and they probably think they will be able to compete against google.... and pigs fly

A classic case of if you can't beat em, buy em

[KacypeJeope]

MS is the #1 company in terms of patents granted on a yearly basis

PWNAGE

[agildeta]

Ah, how the mighty are fallen.

I remember as early as 13 years ago, and definitely at around 10 years ago, Yahoo email was pretty much unsurpassed. They were up against little leaguers like Mailexcite, Hotmail, and other services all jostling for a piece of the pie. Of all my mail services, Yahoo was the one that kept out the spam and gave me enough storage space.

But Gmail knocked them off the pedestal in about 2004 or so. And the Yahoo search engine had long been supplanted by the almighty Google.

Much as I dislike Microsoft, they have still remained a competitive force, even if you discount their near-monopoly status. Yahoo seems poised at this stage to drop into the category of "couldn't quite escape relegation to the footnotes".

And yes, Vista has all sorts of problems. The law school I'm at has laptops and offered Vista upgrades to all the students. Most of the ones I know turned them down and those who didn't have experienced crashes and teething problems. My computer is XP, which is a decent enough OS, though my favorite has to be Win98.

And if you're having difficulty naming innovative Apple products that are currently wowing the market, you've evidently got a few newsflow problems of your own.

[Chooriwrocafn]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
And if you're having difficulty naming innovative Apple products that are currently wowing the market, you've evidently got a few newsflow problems of your own. The key is original idea. Please read properly before making snarky comments, otherwise it backfires just like this.

Do you think the iPod was an original idea?
The iTMS an original idea?
The iPhone an original idea?
Multi-touch an original idea?
MacBooks an original idea?
MacBook Air an original idea?

The answer is "no", across the board.

[WoCTrt0X]

Originally posted by Asher
MS is the #1 company in terms of patents granted on a yearly basis, so I don't think this is quite right. That does go to show for something, although probably not the resounding proof you're looking for.

In order to qualify for patent status, a company basically has to show the US government that what they're doing has not in its entirety been done before. (See 35 U.S.C., which has a few other subtleties, mostly procedural.) If you've taken a look at the vast majority of patents held in the US Patent and Trademark Office you'll see at a glance the problems with the patent system today.

Companies can claim overly broad categories and thus "squat" on patents to hammer after-arriving legit developers with lawsuits (as happened to the Blackberry device).

There is a very reduced need to show actual utility - as long as it's not merely described as usable as "landfill" or "herbicide" or "fertilizer" it'll pass muster.

Furthermore, because you can use any type of language you want to describe the claims in a patent filing, there's no way the PTO can realistically trawl through hundreds of millions of previous patents searching for near-equivalents. The main mover in these processes are... surprise surprise... rival companies, who hire people to trawl through the patent lists and raise red flags when they see something that looks like something else the PTO has already granted.


So yes, the number of patents does stand for something, and a private individual who has one in his or her study is definitely holding something to be proud of. But for a large corporation, the patent process has so many arbitrary loopholes and inconsistencies that it's as much a political process as an innovative one.

[ProomoSam]

Originally posted by Asher
By definition, a patent is some form of original idea. RIM would like to speak to you.

[Nopayof]

Originally posted by Ming
A classic case of if you can't beat em, buy em This isn't precisely what Microsoft is doing. Rather, they're creating a loser's club very expensively.

[evammaUselp]

Originally posted by Asher
By definition, a patent is some form of original idea. Tell that to Eli Whitney and his cotton gin.

[attishina]

When it comes to business decisions, I would not bet against Microsoft, ever. No matter what you may argue about the quality of their products, they are a business monster. That's how they got where they are today. If they think $44.6 billion is a good deal for Yahoo, then it probably is.

[Amoniustauns]

$44.6 billion is more then the GDP of 121 countries in nominal terms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

[Buyingtime]

Respect isn't what I'd call it. They created an empire off of crappy products. They should have gone the way of Wang, but their incredible business acumen turned them into a virtual monopoly. Granted, part of their business model included breaking the law and getting lucky in government, but, hey, that's part of business.

Google is a one trick pony, it's just a damned good trick. They are all advertising based. Google does not compete with MS' core business, which is OS and apps, at least not yet anyway. Please, if MS can afford to shell out 44.6 billion, it ain't hurting.

[LianneForbess]

Well, if MS wants a battle, and they can't get Google... Yahoo! is the next the get so... I don't see why they shouldn't do this. It's a different thing if they want to enter this battle. But if they want that, IMO this is the thing to do. At what cost, time and so forth, that's another issue, and what they want to actually do with it.

[hhynmtrxcp]

http://mashable.com/2007/05/04/microsoft-yahoo/

so far the press I've seen has been favorable. With Google buying double click they're fast become the internet advertising monster and supposedly Google is eying Microsoft's lucrative Office Suite with online applications. I guess Microsoft wants to be as strong as possible in challenging Google on its home turf (internet advertising & searching) before Google can create a virtual monopoly.

Though I'd argue that Google's large market share isn't really a monopoly since it is very easy to switch internet portals but extremely hard for businesses to switch their entire software systems. The biggest threat, I guess, would be if Google's free apps (assuming they ever arrive) bit into Microsoft's market share causing them to lose profits.