Fred Being Fred aside...
Yahoo! could be aiming to be acquired by Facebook or Google.
Assuming the patents involved are tenable, this looks rather like a viable reverse-acquisition strategy.
Yahoo Crosses The Line
101–110 of 236 posts
Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line
#102I disagree with the patent situation as much as anyone, but that was massively melodramatic (and almost completely lacking any substance).
it was a rant. you are right.
Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line
#103I'd love to hear Fred talk about how Twitter is preparing, because it's a good guess that they're next.
Probably the reason for this post in fact.
Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line
#104Well I hope he doesn't use any Apple products then. That would be pretty hypocritical.
i called Apple evil on stage at a conference a few years ago
Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line
#105I wish I would have choose law instead of software.
Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line
#106And how many worthless patents doe USV firms have? And where was Fred when MS started its shit? Oh effing come one now, lets have a honest conversation Fred instead of some lame miss-direction..
i've been pretty loud and vocal on the anti-software patent thing for quite a while now
Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line
#107I really don't like saying this, but here it goes: Don't hate the player, hate the game. We need real, substantive patent reform in this country.
A) I'm perfectly ok with hating the player and the game. Patent reform would be great, but you can't legislate sanity or neighborliness. B) This is not the game. As Fred Wilson explains, web company patents have been thought of as defensive. If this triggers a wave of patent lawsuit bullshit, then everybody will end up poorer. Except the lawyers, of course.
Mutually Assured Litigation.
Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line
#108Sounds like it is finally time to migrate off flickr. I wonder what the best options are -- self hosting of full res, plus FB Photos for social? Is Picasa worthwhile?
Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
The more we have companies blatantly showing how unproductive and how software patents are actually hurting innovation, the more likely it is that change will happen. Just remember though that right now the pharmaceutical companies are massively outspending the technology sector as far as lobbying Congress. (A Senator is a wonderful thing --- everyone should own one!) As a Google employee I can contribute to Google N…
Companies like Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, and IBM which hold a huge number of software patents and aren't exactly keen on seeing that system go away, either. But yes, big pharma relies almost exclusively on patents to recoup R&D costs.
> But yes, big pharma relies almost exclusively on patents to recoup R&D costs.
What? I was under the impression that they rely mostly on advertising to recoup costs, their advertising budgets are generally much larger than their R&D budgets.
Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
The almost-myth of the fiduciary responsibilty of company executives to be irresponsible. I wrote elsewhere [1]: > A point about the morality of companies angle: the so-called "fiduciary duty" of companies that is an overriding duty to maximise shareholder returns within the constraints of the law above all other ends is a legal obligation in only a few countries. In most countries, including most states in the US, e…
I had a ton of stock options that would have made me rich if Yahoo had accepted Microsoft's buy out well above the trading price a while back - something shareholders would have loved. So even this particular company is well known for not following the duty of making the most money for its holders...
>even this particular company is well known for not following the duty of making the most money for its holders
The selling of a company doesn't exactly fall into maximization of shareholder profits: it depends on a couple things. The board of a company has no obligation to maximize it's short term value. Otherwise, anytime someone is offered a profitable buyout and turns it down they would violating their social responsibilities. I could be wrong, but I had a similar discussion with a close friend who is a big dog in the world of finance and that's the message I got from him.
Here's some relevant info: >The role of such statutes is especially important in light of the QVC decision, which prohibits directors from simply approving a strategic merger based on their business judgment that the transaction provides more value in the long term. http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/blt/8-3shareholders.html
Also, you may be interested in this. http://sloanreview.mit.edu/executive-adviser/2010-3/5231/the...