Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Offered $40 a Share For Yahoo

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the maximizing-shareholder-value dept.

Yahoo! 306

fistfullast33l writes "Bloomberg is reporting that a recently unsealed court case by shareholders against Yahoo reveals that Microsoft offered $40 a share for the Internet search company in January 2007 and Yahoo turned it down. We've extensively discussed Microsoft's bid for Yahoo earlier this year for $33 a share, which was rebuffed. Investor Carl Icahn has launched a proxy fight against Yahoo over the spurning of the Microsoft deal." CWmike notes Computerworld's coverage of the revelations: "The complaint places much of the blame on [Yahoo CEO Jerry] Yang, describing him as someone with a 'well-known' antipathy toward Microsoft who acted out of a personal interest to keep Yahoo independent. Something wrong with that? Oh, yeah... public company."

cancel ×

306 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It's like watching ugly people kiss (3, Interesting)

seanadams.com (463190) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643219)

Who hasn't already written off both of these companies? Anyone holding either of them for the long term simply does not grok where the internet and personal computing are going, or how desperately inept these two companies have become due to their size and age.

Microsoft's asset is an OS that people are still locked into, but becoming violently sick of. Yahoo's asset is a rapidly diminishing brand and user base. Combine them and you just get an even faster and more epic fail. This is the next AOL/TW.

The guys who will eat their lunch are the Googles and Apples of the world, who are both innovating and listening to their customers. Size alone won't help you compete with that, you need to get back to innovating. I think people are being way too slow to jump the sinking ship here - if I were a YHOO shareholder, I'd have dumped as soon as the offer hit the table and the stock hit $30. Why on earth would you hold out for $31?

Re:It's like watching ugly people kiss (1, Redundant)

DigDuality (918867) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643279)

with the rate of growth of Redhat in the datacenter, I'd throw them up there with Google and Apple too.

"These go to $31." (5, Funny)

zooblethorpe (686757) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643365)

I think people are being way too slow to jump the sinking ship here - if I were a YHOO shareholder, I'd have dumped as soon as the offer hit the table and the stock hit $30. Why on earth would you hold out for $31?

Well, since you asked why:

Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one higher, isn't it? It's not $30. You see, most blokes, you know, will be selling at $30. You're on $30 here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on $30 in your portfolio. Where can you go from there? Where?
Marty DiBergi: I don't know.
Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty DiBergi: Hold out for $31.
Nigel Tufnel: 31. Exactly. One higher.

Maybe not too far off the mark...

Cheers,

Re:It's like watching ugly people kiss (4, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643485)

Why on earth would you hold out for $31?

Well, as but one example, Carl Ichan is reported to own about 50 million shares in Yahoo ( http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080513/yahoo_icahn.html [yahoo.com] ) so a stock increase from $30 to $31 represents a profit of about $50 million. Now, call me wacky, but that sounds like a good reason to me...

Re:It's like watching ugly people kiss (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643667)

Speaking of ugly people...

He can "want" it all he likes, but it's unlikely he's going to get it at this point. A nice brutal minority shareholder lawsuit should finish the company off nicely.

Re:It's like watching ugly people kiss (4, Insightful)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643695)

Oh yeah I feel real sorry for the guy who didn't cash out for $1,500,000,000 because he could have made $1,550,000,000

Re:It's like watching ugly people kiss (2, Interesting)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643773)

Oh, and I should add is now stuck with a measly $1,307,500,000 worth of yahoo shares.

Re:It's like watching ugly people kiss (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643705)

Why on earth would you hold out for $31? Well, as but one example, Carl Ichan is reported to own about 50 million shares in Yahoo ( http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080513/yahoo_icahn.html [yahoo.com] ) so a stock increase from $30 to $31 represents a profit of about $50 million. Now, call me wacky, but that sounds like a good reason to me...
Only if he's selling the shares he personally holds. Until then, it's just a number - and when you have $1,500,000,000 (yes, 1.5bn) in stock to begin with, it's a fairly insignificant number at that.

Re:It's like watching ugly people kiss (2, Insightful)

skiflyer (716312) | more than 6 years ago | (#23644137)

It's 3.3% ... depending how long it takes to make that dollar that could be very large or very small. Just because the numbers are big doesn't make them insignificant... you always have to measure in %, and by % 3.3% for a day is a good day for most stocks.

Re:It's like watching ugly people kiss (2, Interesting)

Miseph (979059) | more than 6 years ago | (#23644153)

Also consider that when somebody dumps $1.5bn of a single stock, it is no longer worth $1.5bn.

I'd imagine the real reason he's pissed is that he's so heavily invested in Yahoo he can't possibly get out of it.

That said, even if it halved in value had he sold his stock off, he can still cry me a river: "I only made $750,000,000 cashing out my YHOO stocks, wah!"

Re:It's like watching ugly people kiss (1)

nategoose (1004564) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643487)

I agree, for the most part, but AOL and TW didn't overlap in what they had going into the deal nearly as much as MS and yahoo do. MS doesn't gain anything they don't already have by acquiring yahoo except a yahoo personals (and MSN already has a tie in with match.com). They'd get some more account members (a lot of which already have hotmail/msn accounts in addition to yahoo), some programmers (MS already hires programmers they don't need to play keep away), a new name, and a bunch of sites that have the same stuff that they already have and aren't making . Yahoo is only worth something to NOT MS.

Re:It's like watching ugly people kiss (4, Insightful)

pluther (647209) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643723)

MS doesn't gain anything they don't already have by acquiring yahoo ...Yahoo is only worth something to NOT MS.

Which may be exactly why MS is so interested in acquiring Yahoo. They do a lot of the same things. And so does Google. So, instead of MS vs. Yahoo vs. Google, it would be MS Yahoo vs. Google.

Sometimes the point isn't to expand into new markets, but to gain control of the ones you're already in.

Re:It's like watching ugly people kiss (1)

nategoose (1004564) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643939)

If the value of MS right now is M, and the value of Yahoo is Y, then what is the value of MS + Yahoo? I predict it's actually less than M if for no other reason than the expense of acquiring Yahoo. MS needs to either figure out why they aren't as successful as Google in the web portal business and concentrate on fixing what they already have or find a different battle to fight.

Re:It's like watching ugly people kiss (5, Insightful)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643551)

Who hasn't already written off both of these companies?
I would assume only a fool would write off two of the largest tech companies in the country (with a combined revenue of 57.33B).

or how desperately inept these two companies have become due to their size and age.
Yes because we all know the only real innovation isn't done in multi-million dollar research centers, it's done in dad's garage, duh!

Microsoft's asset is an OS that people are still locked into, but becoming violently sick of.
Yeah one would think the nightly car bombings outside of Microsoft's HQ would finally stop this 'stay the course' mentality. But for some reason people seem to enjoy using a OS on cheap hardware the runs reliably and quickly when configured properly. Oh and plays the latest games!.. We're in the twilight zone now.

Yahoo's asset is a rapidly diminishing brand and user base
I'm sure that's it. Not anything to do with years of R&D [yahoo.com] or their Publisher Network. [yahoo.com]

The guys who will eat their lunch are the Googles and Apples of the world
Yes because it's all about Google Search on OSX.

/sigh I have no problem with your mention of Google, but Apple... Really? Like for realsies? Sorry bro, I'm into computers... Not toys.

Re:It's like watching ugly people kiss (4, Insightful)

sobachatina (635055) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643717)

I don't necessarily disagree with your point that MS and Yahoo should be taken seriously but this was funny:

people seem to enjoy using a OS on cheap hardware... Oh and plays the latest games!
then

Sorry bro, I'm into computers... Not toys.
Your arguments for windows are that it is cheap and plays games and then you discredit everything else as toys? I agreed with you all the way up to that final statement.

Re:It's like watching ugly people kiss (2, Insightful)

pluther (647209) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643779)

but Apple... Really? Like for realsies? Sorry bro, I'm into computers... Not toys.

Perhaps you are - but a great many people are into toys. People aren't buying iPhone's because it's the most useful ultra-portable computer around (it isn't even close) - they're buying it because it's fun.

Yeah, I'd be watching Apple again, too. Not their desktop computer lines, but they have a lot more going for them than that.

Re:It's like watching ugly people kiss (1)

Cochonou (576531) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643801)

I find ironic the apparent contradiction of some of your arguments:
-But for some reason people seem to enjoy using a OS on cheap hardware the runs reliably and quickly when configured properly. Oh and plays the latest games!..
-Sorry bro, I'm into computers... Not toys.

That does not make some of your other points invalid, though.

Re:It's like watching ugly people kiss (4, Insightful)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643601)

Apple is innovating?

They take technology that exists in lots of other places, and put it in a prettier package. OSX is nice, but it's BSD with pretty graphics.

The iPhone is nice, but it's a cleaned up version of the Nokia E70 (see: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=iphone [thebestpag...iverse.net] )

Apple is known NOT to listen to their customers. They listen to Steve Jobs (and for their benefit, I might add).

Honestly, Microsoft has been around the block on these types of things before, and while Google and Apple are big threats, I don't consider Microsoft a 'stupid' company by any means -- I feel they will have a period of crap (oh wait, Vista...), reorganize and come back stronger.

And in the end it's better for us all if they do. Although if MS ever put out an OS that is better than Linux on security, and better than OSX on ease of use and prettiness -- Slashdotters would still decry it. So I guess on this site, it's lose lose for them. But their bank accounts are still rather full.

Re:It's like watching ugly people kiss (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643775)

Damn it! The first thread I read after giving out the last of my mods and I wish I had them all back. For what it's worth, very insightful!

Re:It's like watching ugly people kiss (1, Insightful)

abigor (540274) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643933)

Apple is innovating?

They take technology that exists in lots of other places, and put it in a prettier package. OSX is nice, but it's BSD with pretty graphics.
No, it's not. You should consider learning about software technology sometime.

Re:It's like watching ugly people kiss (1)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643973)

Thank you for that very insightful reply.

Now I know exactly why you think I'm wrong.

Re:It's like watching ugly people kiss (1)

abigor (540274) | more than 6 years ago | (#23644173)

That's good, I'm glad I was of help. Once you've learned some operating systems fundamentals, I recommend reading "Mac OS X Internals" by Amit Singh.

Re:It's like watching ugly people kiss (1)

stubear (130454) | more than 6 years ago | (#23644085)

Thanks for the Maddox reference. I had read that one before but I still laughed my ass off this tome around.

Re:It's like watching ugly people kiss (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 6 years ago | (#23644121)

Apple is innovating?

They take technology that exists in lots of other places, and put it in a prettier package. OSX is nice, but it's BSD with pretty graphics.


I do not have *any* apple product (I am not their market) but I think the multitouch mouse with gestures in personal computers was a first.

Now just give a look at the recent news (at news.google.com) and you will see how Microsoft is all multitouch and stuff. Of course all they are doing is promising vapourware for the upcoming Windows 7 which as with Longhorn, we know it won't have all the technology they are currently hyping (I'm looking at you "three pillars")

Re:It's like watching ugly people kiss (1)

skiflyer (716312) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643659)

And anyone who believes your arguments doesn't grok money, momentum, business users or how real individuals (as opposed to just geeks) use personal computers.

But hey, claim an argument is obvious and it must be right!

Re:It's like watching ugly people kiss (1)

Roman Geyzer (1215500) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643661)

You have forgotten that MSFT and YHOO are far more diversified than you give them credit for. MSFT will be selling OS's for many many years to come and there's a place in the market for that. Plus they have a fledgling suite of business products that neither GOOG nor AAPL have been able to penetrate. Be careful who you write-off in this world. That said, I agree that the pace of innovation has been poor at MSFT and they need to start getting more creative. However, I think they do need to merge their search engines and advertising platforms to achieve the scale it will take to keep and win over advertisers while improving the user's experience.

Re:It's like watching ugly people kiss (4, Insightful)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643669)

Microsoft's asset is an OS that people are still locked into, but becoming violently sick of.
That's an interesting concept, but most people don't know what an operating system is. To a majority of the purchasing public, an OS is part of the computer. Both companies (Apple, MS) are aggressively perpetuating this myth; and the consumer will very likely never realize that there's a difference.

Re:It's like watching ugly people kiss (1)

tprime (673835) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643687)

The guys who will eat their lunch are the Googles and Apples of the world, who are both innovating and listening to their customers

Apple caring about their customers? I am not quite sure why that reputation still lives but they have almost become the next Microsoft in terms of how many decisions they make to limit what users can do with their tools (not going to cite links, but just do a /. seach on Apple for the last couple of years)

Google innovates, but they are no longer the darling of their 'do no evil' days. They are on here lately as much as Apple in terms of their lack of social conscience.

Personally, I like Google and Apple, but to think that given time and power they won't become the same kind of companies Microsoft and Yahoo are is short sighted. The industry is cyclical (and fickle.) As Microsoft and Yahoo continue their slow decline (yes it will be VERY slow for MS because of their cash reserves), other companies will grow. Over time those companies, like google, will eventually fade when they stop being about the customer and more about profit and appeasing the other corporate warlords.

I mostly agree, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23643867)

If apple were listening to its customers, it would be building open systems with less DRM.

And Office is a *major* asset for Microsoft.

Don't discount Office. (2, Interesting)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643923)

Honestly I don't see people getting sick of Windows, there is no alternative on low end machines that people will flock to because there is no software for them. It is human nature to complain and the biggest target is Microsoft. I use Windows and OS X at home. I am strictly restricted to XP or NT at work on PCs. It doesn't get in my way, it doesn't do anything wrong. If anything the same problem I have with OS X I have with Windows; OS X handles it better; and that is bad software. Hell even my iMac wasn't immune to bad video drivers.

Of course the real monster is Office. I know Mac fans who did not move to Intel versions until Office was native. It is more important long term than the OS under it is.

Apple to me seems to be moving away from the desktop trying to redirect us to the living room; one place I refuse to allow a PC to enter (apple or ms or linux)

I know its accepted to ridicule Ms and speak of imminent doom and gloom but its been the same for ages here. I remember day one here for me and it was always Microsoft is going to die. There are just too many smart people there to write them off.

Now Yahoo, yuck. I can't even stand going to their clutter of a page. If anything they probably are the loser here, they need someone to use them because the public isn't

Re:It's like watching ugly people kiss (1)

$1uck (710826) | more than 6 years ago | (#23644157)

The only hope (IMHO) for Microsoft is to split into several different companies one Offering an OS, one offering Development Tools/solutions, one for Entertainment, one for Business software. Companies that have no ties implicit or explicit as I think it is these ties between the various business units that is killing them.

Awwwww poor carl icahn (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23643271)

Awwww the poor billionare can't make more billions now so he is going to cry about it and get hostile BAWLLLLLLL

Seriously this dude needs to fuck off. He can launch all the proxy wars he wants but he will not get anywhere with it. All of a sudden he has a say so in anything? Is he some kind of lawyer defending the 'good' of the merger? The dude needs to get off the smell of his own shit and mind his own business.

Fuck Carl Icahn.

Jerry Yang did the right thing (5, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643275)

Sure it cost his shareholders billions, sure he's going to lose his job and be sued into oblivion for gross mismanagement, sure he will be lucky to make it out of the shareholder's meeting without being tarred and feathered. But the important thing is that he stood up to Bill Gates, stuck out his tongue, and yelled "I DON'T LIKE YOU!"

And isn't that what it's all about, folks?

Re:Jerry Yang did the right thing (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643313)

Yeah. That will have been worth it, when in 2010, Yahoo! shareholders realise their $11.00 per share.

Right thing for employees. (5, Insightful)

Odder (1288958) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643519)

Yahoo would not have survived to 2009 if all it's employees quit. That's why Yang made sure $2 billion of the purchase price would go to employee severance plans. There's probably been some disruption anyway. Wouldn't you have a resume on the street with all of the FUD and BS being flung? The severance plans gave employees a reason to stick around and be fired by M$, or just keep on working if the deal fell through.

Painting this to be a personal thing by Yang is nuts. Yahoo and M$ were getting along famously until M$ decided to launch a hostile takeover.

twitter, please read this (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23643841)

It would be appreciated if you post a reply to this thread [slashdot.org] , as well as being decent enough to apologize to George Ou for insulting him.

Thank you.

Re:Right thing for employees. (2, Informative)

umofomia (639418) | more than 6 years ago | (#23644127)

Painting this to be a personal thing by Yang is nuts. Yahoo and M$ were getting along famously until M$ decided to launch a hostile takeover.
Microsoft never launched a hostile takeover. A hostile takeover means bringing the offer to the shareholders directly, which they never did. All Microsoft did was bring their offer to Yahoo's board, which is what any other company would do if they were interested in buying them. Apparently this latest news indicates that Yang decided to not even negotiate. Though there were rumors that Microsoft might go hostile after the board negotiations broke down, it never happened.

Jerry Yang did the right thing for the COMPANY (4, Interesting)

WebCowboy (196209) | more than 6 years ago | (#23644115)

Yeah. That will have been worth it, when in 2010, Yahoo! shareholders realise their $11.00 per share.
It all depends on your perspective. Yes, it WILL be worth it for Yahoo EMPLOYEES and USERS. On the other hand, Yahoo SHAREHOLDERS are understandably unhappy. Yahoo shareholders that are angry are upset because they wanted a way to jump ship and make a boatload of money...pure greed. A buyout would hurt Yahoo employss, Yahoo users and the industry as a whole. It would make the AOL/TW and Daimler/Chrysler mergers look like a raging success.

If it came as a surprise to anyone that Yahoo's founders and high-level managers have an antipathy towards MSFT then they must've been living in a cave, or are total morons. From Yahoo's inception there has been little love for MSFT--if they ever cooperated it was grudgingly, in their own self interest. There is a cultural gap bigger than the Grand Canyon there.

It doesn't help that there is a giant impedance mismatch when it comes to technology and infrastructure. A Netcraft search is telling: Yahoo is almost universally FreeBSD, and what is left is Linux. Yahoo has ZERO Microsoft in their data centres. MSFT, of course, is almost universally Windows Server.

Remember what happened to Hotmail when MSFT bought it? They ripped out all the FreeBSD over the first couple of years, subjecting users to regular periodic disruptions. "To hell with users, we eat our own dogfood dammit!". Not only that, I'd say most of the hotmail employees were abandoned too--wandered away or pushed out.

Hotmail still exists today as a cornerstone to MSFT's "Live" initiative and is probably the biggest webmail provider out there so it wasn't all bad of course, but there is a difference here: MSFT had no webmail service of note before buying Hotmail. In the case of Yahoo, what have they got that MSFT doesn't have? They both have an IM platform and client, a search portal, webmail, advertising services, etc...except NONE of Yahoo's runs on MSFT technology! Within 2 years, the yahoo portal will be gone, the IM client will be gone, the webmail will be gone, everything will be gone. Yahoo is coveted for its customer base and advertising presence. It'll live for awhile as "MS Yahoo! Live" for awhile then it'll be gone. It's employees will be gone. It'll be a footnote in history.

It doesn't matter all that much to me; I have no great love for either company and think they both offer mediocre service and crappy software. However, if Yahoo's directors and Yang himself care about the company and really believe it would grow, they've made the right decision to resist a buyout by MSFT. You'd have to be a fool to think there'd be anything of substance left of Yahoo after MSFT slayed them and feasted upon the corpse. Some of us would cheer to see that, but I'm betting the founder, directors and loyal employees would understandably NOT want to see that.

Anyways, who is to say that Yahoo shareholders would be better off with the MSFT shares tossed their way in a buyout? Right now, I'd say NEITHER stock is going anywhere exiting in the next 2 years. By the way, if you just go by the charts, Yahoo did the right thing; in the past year, YHOO has lost just over 9 percent, but MSFT has lost over 10 percent. If you extend where things have been out to 2010, if you think YHOO is heading towards $11, then MSFT will probably be $10.50.

No (4, Insightful)

everphilski (877346) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643341)

It's about taking your January share price of $19 and doubling it into $40 over the course of a few short months, not to mention your shareholders, and perhaps most importantly vested employees. Sure, Jerry has a lot of cash with or without Microsoft but employees with shares could literally double their investments overnight with this deal. I'm sure theres a good bit of internal angst.

People used to speak of Microsoft Millionaires, this could have made a few Yahoo Millionaires. Chances are Ichann will get a shot to do what Jerry should have done.

Re:No (4, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643623)

People used to speak of Microsoft Millionaires, this could have made a few Yahoo Millionaires. Chances are Ichann will get a shot to do what Jerry should have done.
Maybe Yang thinks he can do better without someone buying him out. Yang, and other members of the Board, are not obligated 'maximize shareholder value at all costs'.

In the long run, their goal is to make the company profitable. The more profitable, the more shareholder value is improved. Usually this coincides with maximizing shareholder value, but not always.

In the end, if the voting shareholders feel Yang isn't doing a good enough job by making choices they don't agree with (like sticking his tongue out at Bill Gates and Microsoft), then they can all vote him off the island, so to speak.

No, I doubt Icahn will get anywhere. It isn't Icahn's personal call whether or not Yang made the right call, it is the votes of all those holding voting stock.

Re:No (4, Insightful)

everphilski (877346) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643803)

Follow the news, it's not that hard.

It's not just Ichann. It's several managers of several mutual/hedge funds, several of which tend to be quiet and not meddle in the affairs of boards and the like. They just want a steady ROI. But this was just too much. You might just find a significant enough coalition of major shareholders to oust the board.

And read my other post. Yahoo's stock price climaxed at $41 post-bubble, and has been sliding steadily downhill ever since. He can talk all day, but Yang hasn't shown he can turn the ship around until he's forced to. And at that, since Microsoft's offer is withdrawn, the price is still creeping downward. All talk, no game.

Re:No (2, Informative)

alexhard (778254) | more than 6 years ago | (#23644087)

Actually profits don't play into it at all. The simply reason for that is that profit doesn't take into account the opportunity cost and time value of capital. He really does have to maximise shareholder value.

Re:Jerry Yang did the right thing (1)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643343)

Yes, yes it is!

Re:Jerry Yang did the right thing (0)

exley (221867) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643377)

Sure it cost his shareholders billions, sure he's going to lose his job and be sued into oblivion for gross mismanagement...
When you say he "did the right thing" I'm not sure that phrase means what you think it means. Costing shareholders (whom a public company is beholden to) billions and "gross mismanagement" don't exactly sound like the right thing. I don't know either way if the buyout would have been good or bad for Yahoo (who really does?), but the way you put it really doesn't help their case for turning down the offer.

But the important thing is that he stood up to Bill Gates, stuck out his tongue, and yelled "I DON'T LIKE YOU!"
Ah ok, so "doing the right thing" means "acting like a three year old."

Re:Jerry Yang did the right thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23643587)

Does the word "whoosh!" means anything to you?

Re:Jerry Yang did the right thing (3, Informative)

m0rph3us0 (549631) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643605)

Jerry Yang's job isn't to do whats good for Yahoo, it's to do whats good for the share holders. Maybe you forget that they are the people who actually own the company. Yang needs to demonstrate how Yahoo will deliver more than double its January value to it's shareholders.

That's part of the deal for taking public money, if you don't like the deal don't take the money.

He did something far worse than that... (4, Insightful)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643381)

.... He made a long-term decision instead of thinking about short-term profits. He's being sued for looking beyond the next few quarters.

If you think Yahoo can't turn it around, then yeah. He fucked up big-time. But if you think (as I'm sure he does) that Yahoo can be an innovative company that can step in to fill the gap as Microsoft declines, then he did the right thing. Hardly matters either way though. (Some profit now > Lots of profit over time) in the eyes of wall street.

Re:He did something far worse than that... (2, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643461)

Did he even take the offer to the shareholders? That question is going to feature prominently in this case, I think you will see...

Basically, yes he may have been doing 'a good thing' by blowing Microsoft off, but did he go about it in the right way? Was the offer rejected unilaterally or were the owners of the company, the shareholders, allowed any say in the matter? From what I can see, no they were not.

Re:He did something far worse than that... (4, Insightful)

everphilski (877346) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643509)

Look at their 10 year trend here [google.com] .

They peaked at $100 a share before the bubble popped. Fair enough. Steadily rose to $41 back in 2005. Nice. But now look at the trend - steady decline ever since. Clip off 2008 to remove Microsoft's influence and the trend is even more severe. Yahoo's stock price is dying. Jerry can flap his wings and talk till he passes out about raising the value of Yahoo, but he wasn't doing it for the three years up till now, why is it magically going to occcur now? Microsoft was their best shot at creating shareholder value.

Re:He did something far worse than that... (5, Funny)

Reverend528 (585549) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643571)

Clearly google is a biased source.

Re:He did something far worse than that... (1)

Mr. Flibble (12943) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643873)

Yahoo's stock price is dying.
And netcraft confirms it... *ducks*

Re:He did something far worse than that... (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643957)

But now look at the trend - steady decline ever since

Microsoft barely looks any better tho.

Microsoft was their best shot at creating shareholder value.

In the same way as selling in Nov 07 or during the actual offer would have created value for the selling shareholders? You don't necessarily get redo's in stock trading.

There's a reason Microsofts stock dropped on the offer. There's a reason Ballmer was, I suspect, forced by the board to drop the bid. Much as I'd find it amusing to see Microsoft lose an investment of that size, a whole lot of shareholders in both companies obviously thought it would have been a very bad deal for both of them, most likely ending up with both customers and employees moving away from the joined company. Apart from temporarily getting to pretend to be more of a serious contender in googles field, there is little long term shareholder value in this deal.

Placating Ballmers ego, while perhaps safest around furnished rooms, may not necessarily be the best business decision.

People who wanted to sell at, or near, Microsoft's offer had the chance to do so until the offer was dropped (heck, they still can; iirc, the offer was 50% cash 50% stock, and with the way Microsoft's stock is moving, by the time the deal had been approved they'd have been glad to get $20-$25 actual money for their stock; I'd imagine the sales pressure from a significant fraction of yhoo owners with no interest in being msft owners would depress the stock even more, something which Icahn and other's who'll dump the stock as soon as they can aren't likely to change).

Re:He did something far worse than that... (1)

Tranzistors (1180307) | more than 6 years ago | (#23644007)

Lets look at examples [yahoo.com]

As we can clearly see, this company was hopelessly doomed in '73 and '88 was sure death. I wonder whatever happened to them...

Re:Jerry Yang did the right thing (2, Interesting)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643595)

I dont think anybody is stupid enough to think that Yahoo would last that long after a Microsoft takeover. As soon as the assets (its users) was migrated to Windows Live or whatever brand is up for the day it would have been dismantled and chopped up to pieces. The only thing Microsoft wanted was a quick way to get some users to its online services since they cannot get anyone to come by themselves.

Its far better from Yahoos point to get together with Google in the long run. A good partnership could generate new revenues that they themselves cant get alone. For example they together have enough of the online sphere to use as a lever in phones, smartphones and UMPC's and get a real firm foothold in those.

Killing a company is not in any way in the shareholders best interest. The only interest it serves is those who dont hold them but merely buys and sells them on a daily basis. If companies should take that as their prime interest all a company needs to do is to fire all the staff and sell out all the assets to be successful. It would make China very happy but it wouldnt be fun to be an american for very long.

Re:Jerry Yang did the right thing (1)

God of Lemmings (455435) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643799)

I'm sure everyone here realizes that Yahoo is a BSD shop. How many of those people are actually going to stay, knowing that the platform they work on now will eventually be replaced with some release of windows server? How many of those people find themselves ethically obligated not to work for a convicted monopolist? I would expect a huge turnover of their Unix people, especially those who have done primarily Unix their entire career. I'm certain Carl's proxy fight itself is causing a similar problem in itself, and may eventually cause Yahoo a pretty penny in recruiting replacements if they survive.

Cry me a river. (2, Insightful)

SpeedBump0619 (324581) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643305)

If he had a 'well known' antipathy for Microsoft then it was known when he was hired as CEO. Presumably the board of directors considered it a good thing or they would have hired someone else. Investment is risk. If you can't accept that risk don't invest.

Re:Cry me a river. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23643363)

If he had a 'well known' antipathy for Microsoft then it was known when he was hired as CEO. Presumably the board of directors considered it a good thing or they would have hired someone else.

Yeah! Who does this guy think he is??? I think the board should just send him right back to the company they got him from!

Public companies (5, Interesting)

Romancer (19668) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643311)

Fair warning: Rant

Public companies are now being run by the shareholders that take out payday loans, refinance their houses so much they owe money when they sell, cannot build traditional savings since all their income is treated as disposable. Basically the get rich generation with no long term goals other than their next big "fix".

Why does it surprise anybody that the driving force behind these companies is to sell out no matter what the cost to the business, the employees, or even the customers?

Re:Public companies (5, Interesting)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643371)

Why does it surprise anybody that the driving force behind these companies is to sell out no matter what the cost to the business, the employees, or even the customers?

And to head off the stream of ignorance about to insist that public companies are legally required to maximize shareholder value, the US Supreme Court has rejected that interpertation. The purpose of a Board of Directors is to protect a company, which it is allowed to view as a collection of relationships between customers, employees, etc. The case that decided this precident was based around rejecting a higher offer to take one that better served the companies culture.

Your company culture may be "profit maximizing," but don't pretend you can dictate to other companies.

Re:Public companies (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23643823)

Actually, what you're referring to is the "business judgment rule," which says that the Board's business judgment will not be challenged in court absent a showing of bad faith or being on both sides of a transaction. The Board is *required* to focus on maximizing wealth for the company's owners, i.e., the shareholders. However, under the "business judgment rule," the Board may be able to justify its decision to refuse a higher tender offer in that it better understands the long-term business implications of the company and thinks that not selling will be better off in the long run for shareholders.

Re:Public companies (4, Insightful)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 6 years ago | (#23644039)

Teh surpreme court ruling does not matter.

The shareholders legally run the company and as such can do whatever they hell they like including firing CEO's who do not sell out for get rich quick schemes.

You can try to protect the company and what you feel is the best but the shareholders can legally fire you for doing so if they disagree with yoru directions. Actually they fire the board and create a new one who replaces you but still.

I wish these financial institutions would return to long term growth.

Re:Public companies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23643409)

Public companies are now being run by the shareholders that take out payday loans, refinance their houses so much they owe money when they sell, cannot build traditional savings since all their income is treated as disposable.

Yep. Shareholders like Carl Icanh. I hear he took a payday loan to buy his yacht and now is behind on the mortgage payments.

Re:Public companies (4, Insightful)

everphilski (877346) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643417)

The small shareholders, sure. But not the big ones, which comprise the majority of the people who are going to screw over Yang. You think Ichann, or any of the bank managers, mutual fund managers, hedge fund managers, etc. that have holdings in Yahoo are being run by people running to take out payday loans? Doubtful.

Re:Public companies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23643721)

haha, "You think Ichann, or any of the bank managers, mutual fund managers, hedge fund managers, etc. that have holdings in Yahoo are being run by people running to take out payday loans? Doubtful." ... um, you been following the news the last 20 months pal?

Re:Public companies (2, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643769)

You think Ichann, or any of the bank managers, mutual fund managers, hedge fund managers, etc. that have holdings in Yahoo are being run by people running to take out payday loans?
No, but they may be run by people who issued sub-prime variable mortgages to people they knew or should have known wouldn't be able to pay if interest rates increased a bit and real-estate prices didn't continue to increase.

Re:Public companies (1)

wile_e_wonka (934864) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643459)

?

Yahoo's largest shareholders are corporations of various of various sorts (investment banks, retirement funds, etc) and billionaires. People reliant on payday loans have very little voting stock in Yahoo. For the most part, if there is a proxy fight, it will be because sophisticated corporations and billionaires decided to make it so--any comments from the "peasants" won't make it past the help desk.

Re:Public companies (5, Informative)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643547)

Actually, 82% of Yahoo's float is held by institutions and mutual funds [yahoo.com] .

Re:Public companies (1)

moore.dustin (942289) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643559)

That is an oxy-moron my friend. You lampoon the shareholders of Yahoo as those who, as you said, "...take out payday loans, refinance their houses so much they owe money when they sell, cannot build traditional savings since all their income is treated as disposable. Basically the get rich generation with no long term goals other than their next big "fix"."

As shareholders of the company, that means they are making an investment(with disposable income mind you), which is what you said they were not capable of doing. So which is it? I would venture to say that the exact opposite of the people you described are the ones that own Yahoo! stock.

Re:Public companies (4, Insightful)

db32 (862117) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643761)

Not exactly...many investors are gambling rather than investing.

Re:Public companies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23643765)

making an investment
Sucking the value out of a company for short term gains is like paying for a train ticket from New York to San Francisco, and getting off at St. Louis. Sure, you got somewhere, but now you're in St. Louis. Oh, and you probably could have gotten a better deal with purchasing an instrument that was more in line with where you wanted to go.

Re:Public companies (5, Insightful)

metlin (258108) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643645)

Welcome to Slashdot to see people who do not have a basic grasp of finance or business to rant about it.

For one, the majority of shares in most public companies today are held by institutional investors. The next big share holders tend to be PE folks (like Icahn, KKR etc), followed by insurance companies, hedge funds etc.

Secondly, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you went public, you did it for the money - and you can't cry foul when you do something stupid and when people hold you accountable. If you wanted your freedom, you should have stayed private. Sad, but true.

Now, one of the biggest advantages of going public is that you raise capital - and when investors put in their money, they expect returns. Now, some people like Icahn are just vultures who are looking for an excuse to make a quick buck, but most other investors are not happy, either, with the way Yahoo handled the situation.

Like or dislike does not enter business. If it makes business and strategic sense, you do it. If it does not, you don't. If you are interested in discussing morals, ethics and "feelings", you should have kept the company private and done whatever the hell you wanted. I haven't seen anything that indicates that a merger between Yahoo and Microsoft will be a bad thing. It may throw in a little more competition; however I can see why Google is worried - they run the risk of being called a monopoly if Yahoo gets bought out. At the end of the day, once you have shareholders, you have a responsibility to them. You may not like it, but you should have thought of it before you went after the greenbacks.

Re:Public companies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23643693)

Don't forget that it's the public that is hurt by microsoft's illegal monopolist practices. Therefore, anyone who doesn't get in bed with them is working FOR the public, not personal interest.

Re:Public companies (1)

drsquare (530038) | more than 6 years ago | (#23644053)

Public companies are now being run by the people who own them and are invested in them


Fixed your post.

or do it because its the right thing? (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643373)

Yahoo isn't going away. Its better for everyone in the long haul in terms of overall wealth creation to have both Yahoo and Microsoft alive. If you don't like it, hedge and buy both stocks. I'm sick of seeing investors want money NOW, and so they kill their golden goose. But these days its not surprising.

Re:or do it because its the right thing? (1)

nguy (1207026) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643493)

Its better for everyone in the long haul in terms of overall wealth creation to have both Yahoo and Microsoft alive.

Really? What do we need Microsoft for? Why not replace both with the next generation Internet and OS company?

Re:or do it because its the right thing? (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643977)

Really? What do we need Microsoft for? Why not replace both with the next generation Internet and OS company?
Miccrosoft are a classic example of "what happens when a company has a monopoly". I strongly doubt Google getting a monopoly on Internet search and advertising would be a good thing. Whether the competition happens to be Ballmer's Flying Chairs, Inc. or some other company I really don't care - but there has to be real competition.

Re:or do it because its the right thing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23644005)

Simply because they aren't going to die or disappear anytime soon. It might be better to have replacements, but if this deal were to go through and take down both companies, I think Google would be likely to fill much of the void left by them, which although I don't dislike Google, I don't see as a good thing.

Re:or do it because its the right thing? (2, Funny)

urcreepyneighbor (1171755) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643755)

Yahoo isn't going away.
I hope it doesn't. The world always needs an example of what happens when a company refuses to die.

It's like a fifty year old woman that dresses like a teenager. It's funny, yeah, but... a part of you feels so damn sad for her.

Only Bad if it's against shareholder interests (4, Insightful)

weston (16146) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643395)

Microsoft who acted out of a personal interest to keep Yahoo independent. Something wrong with that? Oh, yeah... public company.

There's nothing wrong with acting in personal interests if there's a reasonable argument that it coincides with shareholder interests. And in this case, there certainly is.

Look at Google's value. Which companies are in any position at all to grab any significant share of what they're doing in the market? It's a short list. Yahoo's on it.

If you were holding onto a significant chunk of one of those companies, would you want to (a) sell it now for a quick but small profit or (b) figure out what changes you need to make in the company to have it better compete with Google and acquire value on that level?

Some shareholders might choose a. But b is certainly reasonable.

Frankly, so is the Microsoft antipathy. People like to talk as if the haters are just irrational folks who got up on the anti-MS side of the bed. Nevermind that there's a significant real technical and business history that would make any sane and competent person wary of them.

The web as a platform is open and expanding. Windows as a platform is stagnating and closed. Which do you want to be invested in for the next 10 years?

Re:Only Bad if it's against shareholder interests (3, Insightful)

syrrys (738867) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643783)

It seems to me that many of you do not have your fingers on the pulse of the day to day users in a corporate enviornment. That is why you fail to see why companies use, and will continue to use, Windows as a base OS for their client systems. It works just fine for what these users need to do. It does not "break" as often as you would like it to, or believe it to break. Sorry, get over it. How many of you support over 1000 Windows based systems in a corporate enviornment. (I bet I'm one of the very few with my hand up right now). If you did then you would understand why those ranting about how quickly Windows is on its way along with the dodo are clearly high on Dust Off. Seriously, talk about an emotional, irrational response. And yeah, I know I'm posting from a hotmail account. Does that invalidate my point now? Yahoo will pay dearly for missing the M$ boat. haha.

The pulse of the cube farm (2, Interesting)

weston (16146) | more than 6 years ago | (#23644133)

It seems to me that many of you do not have your fingers on the pulse of the day to day users in a corporate enviornment. That is why you fail to see why companies use, and will continue to use, Windows as a base OS for their client systems.

It's true, I've been out of the cube farm for about a year and a half. And I think it's true that there, Windows still has significant penetration.

But consider the following:

(1) Even in the corporate world, users are ready to get off the upgrade treadmill at Windows XP. Precisely for the reason you mention "It works just fine for what these users need to do." Nobody needs the next version of Windows, nobody really cares, and Vista really isn't that great.

(2) There exist increasingly capable alternatives that also "work just fine for what these users need to do."

(3) More and more work is done on web apps.

It does not 'break' as often as you would like it to, or believe it to break

I'm sure that somewhere, there's a place where seasoned Windows sysadmins correctly administer Windows boxes built from well-selected reliable hardware so well that your statement is true. However, it certainly has not been the case in the business and home environments I've been a part of. And "as often as I'd like it to?" I'd be a happier man if it broke under my use not at all.

But even assuming your statement is truer than I think it is -- the other three points are what I really mean by "Windows is stagnating." Microsoft's licensing revenues certainly aren't going away overnight. But right now, in the main, Windows is pretty much headed to the ignominy of just another commodity.

Re:Only Bad if it's against shareholder interests (1)

rhsanborn (773855) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643811)

You're exactly right, and that is why shareholders probably wouldn't win a lawsuit for negligent management. But, the direction of the company is dictated by the shareholders. We're about to find out whether the shareholders agree with the rejection of Microsoft's offer or not. There are significant benefits to going public, capital being one of them, but that those benefits aren't free.

Save Zimbra! (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643465)

What hurts me most about this Microsoft/Yahoo deal is what would happen to Zimbra. I fear the worst. Can someone tell me any serious contender to Zimbra that is just as good and free?

Re:Save Zimbra! (1)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643627)

POP3 and Squirrelmail.

Enjoy :)

Re:Save Zimbra! (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643843)

I can see how POP3 relates to Exchange, but c'mon, Squirrelmail is quality.

Re:Save Zimbra! (1)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643913)

I'm actually a big Exchange fan, though I know people here will have me tarred and feathered for saying that.

It's open source though. There's no reason why somebody else can't pick up the slack and start the development on it if Microsoft decides to kill it off. That, more than anything would show the success and power of open source.

He did the right thing (0)

Trogre (513942) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643505)

Any course of action that increases Microsofts monopoly in any market is, by definition, a bad thing.

Kudos to Mr Yahoo for stopping this. Now I wonder if Facebook, Myspace and Amazon would do the same.

hmmm. (0)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643543)

trading stock of Yahoo for stock of MS? I think that I would rather have Yahoo. Yahoo is much more likely to expand into new areas and expand. MS already had as much as they could get and are headed for a massive shrinkage. Yahoo, by working with Google, will come out ahead. Look at what Gates did for Apple by helping them back when keeping them around helped the monopoly issue that MS has.

Carl Icahn's role in this... (4, Interesting)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643611)

I hope everyone realises that Carl Icahn isn't a long-term shareholder upset with how the company is being run. He thought he could run it better when Jerry Yang rebuffed MS, and AS A RESULT, bought a significant number of shares. In other words, he bought into the company for the sole purpose of getting Yang tossed out.

In the world of billionaires, not always the most friendly of folks, Icahn is about as pleasant as a rabid shark with PMS. If he gets his way, he'll install a new board, sell Yahoo to MS at $40, help gut the company, and then leave with a few more dollars in his pockets. Yahoo staff will be out of work, the search engine market will become a battle of two titans, and basically everyone will lose except for Carl and his board.

Billionaires (1)

dj245 (732906) | more than 6 years ago | (#23644017)

Some billionaires would take over other companies and sell off the pieces just to make a buck. Some would give a token amount of their money away to charity. Me, I would shoot a guy in public with 50 witnesses. Because clearly the laws of this country do not apply to people of such wealth.

Re:Carl Icahn's role in this... (2, Interesting)

Deagol (323173) | more than 6 years ago | (#23644141)

Wait a sec... Yahoo is a search engine? I thought it was an entertainment hub or sorts. I mean, sure, it *was* a search engine, back in the days when Lycos was it's primary competitor, complete with a lean, clean front page almost as nice as Google's. Now that I think about it, MSN isn't a search engine, either -- just another entertainment hub.

Of course, Google has started down the path of crapware bloat w/ its acquisition of YouTube. At least its front page is still an honest-to-goodness search engine, with clean interface and clean results.

evile never sleeps. time for us to wake up yet? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23643629)

the lights are coming up all over now. conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation&btnG=Search
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html

the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'. the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way. the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet, & by your behaviors. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable. some of US should consider ourselves somewhat fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc.... as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis. concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order. 'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

meanwhile, the life0cidal philistines continue on their path of death, debt, & disruption for most of US. gov. bush denies health care for the little ones;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html

whilst demanding/extorting billions to paint more targets on the bigger kids;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.war.funding/index.html

& pretending that it isn't happening here;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3086937.ece
all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven

(yOUR elected) president al gore (deciding not to wait for the much anticipated 'lonesome al answers yOUR questions' interview here on /.) continues to attempt to shed some light on yOUR foibles. talk about reverse polarity;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3046116.ece

'shareholders' (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643739)

unfortunately they are the most damaging factor for the vision and progress of any company.

Re:'shareholders' (1)

lintux (125434) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643909)

What especially sickens me is that this "mister Icahn" dude wasn't even a Yahoo! shareholder at the time this whole soap started. As far as I know he bought a shitload of shares less than a month ago and apparently this means he can start messing with things that happened before he got involved.

Maybe this really is how this whole "public company" thing works, but IMHO it's retarded.

Re:'shareholders' (2, Informative)

OakLEE (91103) | more than 6 years ago | (#23644139)

unfortunately they are the most damaging factor for the vision and progress of any company.

Really?

Shareholders give companies money to expand, grow, and operate. More over they do it during times when the company cannot raise money through bank or debt issuances. In fact the restrictions a company takes on when taking out a loan are often much more onerous then the messiest of shareholder revolts.

Have you ever tried to start up a business? Do it, and try to get a loan before you've even set up shop. You'll be laughed out of almost every bank you go to, and if you do get a loan you'll probably be paying 500 basis points (5%) over prime. It's much less onerous to give up some control of your company to outside shareholders for their cash. At least then you don't have the exorbitant interest charges (and other potential restrictions) that come with taking out a loan.

Now specifically about Yahoo, Yahoo did not have to offer its stock publicly. If Jerry Yang wanted to run Yahoo like his personal dominion he didn't have to sell 2.6 million shares to the public in 1996 (plus the countless other secondary offerings Yahoo made). He could have retained control, but he chose take the shareholder's money and the many headaches that came along with it.

Something wrong with that? NO. (1)

bluephone (200451) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643759)

Yeah, it's a public company, but if he really feels it's in the best interest of Yahoo's long term survival to stay independent from Microsoft (which it is) then YES it is ok he turned them down. He has NOT neglected his fiduciary duty to the company merely because this won't give Yahoo a big boost NOW. By looking out for the long term viability of the company he has an even STRONGER argument in his defense, because next quarter's numbers are irrelevant if the company folds, or is turned into a ghost of their former glory as a subsidiary, and his shareholders get crap in the end. I applaud him for NOT giving into the lethal tendency of business in this county to only look at next quarter's numbers, and instead do what's right for his company's (and thus shareholder's) long term interests. I'll gladly give up $40 a share now if it means I'll be worth 50 or 60 a share later. Just because most people wouldn't these days doesn't make them right.

Yang wanted more compensation for his employees (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643931)

I have been reading about this and for teh record icann is not a long term shareholder at all.

He only bought teh company after teh failed deal in order to raid it. Read his record here? He will be more than happy to fire 100% of the employees and all assets for pennies on the dollar and then cash out.

The man is a mennace and I am shocked what he did to Time Warner is legal? To me this is gross negligence but I am no lawyer.

Yasng beleived in a couple years he would own more markets in advertising and software development and the internet is still growing in many poorer countries.

The shareholders mostly agree and Icahn has been known to buy up software companies to enforce sales. He pushed several software vendors and fired CEO's to sell to Oracle only to raid and dump later at teh expense of the other shareholders.

Also its been mentioned MS only wants to trade stock and there is no growth for MS. Every market is losing money they are in. Even Vista is barely making them money and they are heavily overvalued. Why else would Bill Gates leave?

interesting timeline .. (1)

rs232 (849320) | more than 6 years ago | (#23644009)

It's interesting considering the first offer was kept secret, that the stock peaked and then rapidly tanked right before Microsofts second offer, it like someone quietly bought the shares and then sold rapidly to provoke a fall in price at which point MS stepped in and made an offer for 60% per share .. :)

Yes, this is why I come to Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23644021)

So that the best business minds in the country can explain to me just how much they know about...

Sorry, I couldn't keep typing that, it hurt my strong sense of reality.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?