Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Businesses The Internet Government The Courts News

Google Was 3 Hours Away From DOJ Antitrust Charges 221

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the not-evil-we-swear dept.
turnkeylinux writes "Google Inc. and Yahoo! Inc. called off their joint advertising agreement just three hours before the Department of Justice planned to file antitrust charges to block the pact, according to the lawyer who would have been lead counsel for the government. 'We were going to file the complaint at a certain time during the day,' says Litvack, who rejoins Hogan & Hartson today. 'We told them we were going to file the complaint at that time of day. Three hours before, they told us they were abandoning the agreement.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Was 3 Hours Away From DOJ Antitrust Charges

Comments Filter:
  • Could be fun (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Xest (935314) on Thursday December 04, 2008 @10:24AM (#25988381)

    I can't help but think you could make a game of this.

    Announce something to get the government's back up, wait until they've done loads and loads of preparation then rip their opportunity from under them just before they get chance.

    The only downside is it's a waste of tax payers cash, not that most public sector jobs aren't a waste of tax payers cash anyway though.

    • Re:Could be fun (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Roland Piquepaille (780675) on Thursday December 04, 2008 @10:27AM (#25988417)

      The only downside is it's a waste of tax payers cash, not that most public sector jobs aren't a waste of tax payers cash anyway though.

      On the contrary, breaking up formed monopolies is a lot more expensive than preventing monopolies from forming in the first place.

      (on a side note: for those who thought Google was any less predatory than Microsoft, think again...)

      • by rlp (11898) on Thursday December 04, 2008 @10:33AM (#25988487)

        The only downside is it's a waste of tax payers cash

        That does not appear to be a concern of anyone in Washington these days.

        • by ari_j (90255) on Thursday December 04, 2008 @10:57AM (#25988759)
          These days? Just how new are you to this?
          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by teslar (706653)

            Just how new are you to this?

            For him to use "these days" in that way evidently indicates that he meant it as opposed to the "good old days when dinosaurs ruled the world". So I guess he's been around for a while :)

            • by lorenzo.boccaccia (1263310) on Thursday December 04, 2008 @11:50AM (#25989433)
              meh. not with all those freaking apatosaurus monopolizing highest trees.
        • by theaveng (1243528)

          Please show me a monopoly that has lasted longer than one generation (25 years). In every case the monopoly was only a temporary one, and eventually was superceded by the growth of new technology, or the arrival of new companies to add competition. Take as example the CD. Sony/Philips held a monopoly on CDs as method of music distribution, eventually forcing phonographs/cassettes out of the marketplace. However the monopoly was short lived (about five years) as other companies quickly developed new meth

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by homer_s (799572)
        Of course, that is assuming that there is some need to break up a 'monopoly' in the first place.

        The other assumption is that there is a defined circle outside of which no competition takes place. Competition does not just exist within an industry; it exists across industries. The airlines have to compete with Webex. Google has to compete with NBC.
        • Re:Could be fun (Score:5, Insightful)

          by dwarg (1352059) on Thursday December 04, 2008 @12:28PM (#25990049)

          Of course, that is assuming that there is some need to break up a 'monopoly' in the first place.

          The sad thing is the proof of the need for antitrust laws has been staring us in the face for months now. Since the bailout of AIG how many times have we heard the phrase, "too big to fail." How many companies are now trying to convince us that they also are too big to fail? In effect these companies are telling us that they represent a single point of failure for the entire US economy.

          The leftist view that we need to prop up these companies is completely wrong. The righties' hands-off approach to all things private inevitably leads to wild fluctuations as companies consolidate and dominate government and individual roles followed by epic collapses and rebuilding periods.

          Those that worship at the alter of the free market either don't understand: 1. That competition is the heart of capitalism, or 2. Companies hate, and will suppress, competition because it cuts into profits.

          The government should play a role in enforcing competition in a healthy market place. Too much government intervention leads to inefficiency and no government intervention leads to corruption. It is through the involvement of an INFORMED electorate that WE THE PEOPLE control how our government interacts with the private sector.

          I say use the bailout money to break these companies up into more manageable and competitive pieces that, once established, will be made into private companies again.

          Boiling your opinions down to oversimplifications like, "no government intervention ever!" is an excuse to remain uninformed and ignorant of what the problems actually are and will lead us away from any real solutions.

          Both parties spend large sums of money on propaganda campaigns through right and left wing media outlets to convince us of the correctness of their oversimplified slogans and misrepresentations of the other side. If you believe them, know that you are being used.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by muellerr1 (868578)
            Very insightful post and I agree with just about everything you said, except this part:

            The leftist view that we need to prop up these companies is completely wrong. The righties' hands-off approach to all things private inevitably leads to wild fluctuations as companies consolidate and dominate government and individual roles followed by epic collapses and rebuilding periods.

            The government leaders of both left and right want to prop the companies up. It's everyone else who opposes this. As soon as the e

            • by theaveng (1243528)

              On the other hand, the left has lots of union backing, and unions like the idea of preserving jobs even if that means giving companies a Taxpayer bailout.

          • Re:Could be fun (Score:4, Interesting)

            by ShatteredArm (1123533) on Thursday December 04, 2008 @01:56PM (#25991537)
            True, to a point. Monopolies are only problematic when the barriers to entry are large. It would be silly, for example, to break up a trust that is limited to the greeting card industry--even if they did decide to ramp up their prices, someone else could easily come in and undercut them. It's a little different, on the other hand, if the startup costs and/or time is sufficiently large. I think we often overstate the power of monopolies to control the markets, though.

            I would argue that the AIG support has nothing to do with a monopoly. They don't have a monopoly, and their competitors are at least as viable as they are, they've just been able to convince politicians that it'll hurt too many of their counterparties should they fail. This behavior can certainly encourage monopolies to form, though.

            no government intervention leads to corruption

            I'm not sure what would lead you to this conclusion. Government is a party in corruption, and in the absense of government there can't be corruption. If you look at a corporation as a quasi-government, then yes, that corporation can have corrupt people in power, but that will be in the interests of the shareholders to prevent (if the executives weren't given special legal protection from shareholders). Governments and corporations operate more or less the same way, except corporations actually have a fiduciary obligation to the shareholders.

            More pragmatically, though, there are good reasons for regulation, but those regulations should be designed to provide (a) transparency and (b) accountability. Free markets require, in addition to competition, correct information in order to operate correctly, so you can't have corporations blatantly lying about their financial data.

      • Re:Could be fun (Score:5, Insightful)

        by FireIron (838223) on Thursday December 04, 2008 @11:42AM (#25989331)
        So, let me see if I understand this...

        Companies like GM and AIG were allowed to grow to the point where their possible failure threatens the entire national (world?) economy -- no questions from DOJ lawyers.

        But Google and Yahoo want to pool their advertising resources, and suddenly the republic is threatened.

        Mmm hmmm.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by MikeBabcock (65886)

        You think that Microsoft would've backed down?

        This is not predatory behaviour; they wanted to something, were told they shouldn't, and then backed down.

        That's how I expect a good corporate citizen to behave.

      • Re:Could be fun (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 04, 2008 @12:39PM (#25990255)

        (on a side note: for those who thought Google was any less predatory than Microsoft, think again...)

        It's amazing the stupidity of the average slashdotter. That's why I love this place, I guess.

        Just to remind you, Microsoft bundled IE with Windows when it had a monopoly on Windows. And, just to remind you in case you forgot, there's nothing illegal about having a monopoly. It just means you outcompeted everyone else. What is illegal is abusing that monopoly.

        Let's look at TFA:

        The never-filed government complaint would have charged that the agreement violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, Litvack tells the Am Law Daily in one of his first interviews since the companies canned the venture. Section 1 bans agreements that restrain trade unreasonably. Section 2 makes it unlawful for a company to monopolize or attempt to monopolize trade.

        So they were basing this on the idea that this would restrain and monopolize trade, so it sounds like all Google did was to make a bigger monopoly and there's a law against that. They didn't abuse any monopoly, which is what Microsoft did.

        But let's look closer. Google's deal with Yahoo was actually proposed as a joint venture whereby Yahoo was supposed to profit as well, and furthermore, Yahoo had the option to back out of the deal and use Google only to the extent they wished.

        So, if you want to compare Google to Microsoft, let's try to come up with an analogy that would, maybe, make your complaint not sound like the ramblings of a 4 year old. Perhaps if Microsoft and Apple penned a deal to put Windows on the Mac because Apple wasn't selling as many Macs as they wanted because the market preferred Windows.

        Anyway, my point is simply this: There's a clear difference between what Google did and what Microsoft did. Google offered to sell its products to its competitors at a rate that was apparently fair enough that they considered it. Microsoft tried to destroy its competitors by abusing an existing monopoly in an unrelated space.

        Personally, I think it might be a good thing that the DOJ stopped this (though maybe not if MS now buys Yahoo and guts them), but if you can't see there's a difference between getting a monopoly by being better than your competition and abusing a monopoly because you can't compete in a space, then maybe you should avoid posting things like the above that make you sound like an idiot.

        Anyway, let me leave you with one final tidbit from the article:

        Litvack acknowledges that Microsoft Corporation and other companies lobbied the department to block the agreement, both publicly and and in private meetings. Litvack insists, though, that Microsoft's lobbying had no bearing on his recommended course of action or on the division's ultimate decision. Microsoft was represented by Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft.

        Sure, I believe that.

        • Re:Could be fun (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Zeinfeld (263942) on Thursday December 04, 2008 @01:45PM (#25991391) Homepage
          Just to remind you, Microsoft bundled IE with Windows when it had a monopoly on Windows. And, just to remind you in case you forgot, there's nothing illegal about having a monopoly. It just means you outcompeted everyone else. What is illegal is abusing that monopoly.

          No, what Google and Yahoo were planning to do was to stop competing with each other and from a joint venture. That is specifically prohibited under the anti-trust laws. Obtaining a monopoly through fair competition is legal in the US. Obtaining a monopoly or dominant market position by forming a cartel with competitors is not.

          It is very different from what Microsoft was accused of which in turn was rather different from the anti-competitive behavior that they engaged in. David Boies botched the Microsoft anti-trust case from the start. He brought it on the basis of complaints from Sun and Netscape that were really more about providing an alibi for their own incompetence than justified compaints. Netscape's treatment of Spyglass was vastly more aggressive than Microsoft's treatment of Netscape. Sun could have partnered with Microsoft to establish itself as a viable alternative to Intel. Instead they tried to challenge Intel and Microsoft at the same time.

          Netscape was giving the browser away so that they could sell a server that exploited exploit the latest essentially proprietary features of their client. By essentially proprietary I mean their habit of releasing a product and submitting the 'standards proposal' to W3C on the same day with no prior discussion whatsoever. That is how cookies were deployed, that is how SSL was deployed and that is how Javascript was deployed. And in every case the Netscape version was initially broken in ways that have taken years to fix afterwards. If you tried to use Javascript in 1995 it was much more likely to crash your browser than do what was intended.

          Now if the DoJ had concentrated on the pricing of Windows they had a real argument. The unit pricing scheme was certainly anti-competitive. But giving away the browser with the O/S was not anticompetitive, the browser was originally intended to be free software that shipped with the O/S. tim Berners-Lee proposed the deep integration into the O/S.

        • by theaveng (1243528)

          IMHO Google and Yahoo should have gone through with the deal, and face the DOJ head-on. "From time to time the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants." - Democratic Party founder Thomas Jefferson. IMHO in this case it was the U.S.-DOJ that was being tyrannical and threatening a lawsuit without cause.

      • Google PREDATORY? (Score:5, Informative)

        by mi (197448) on Thursday December 04, 2008 @01:24PM (#25991029) Homepage

        for those who thought Google was any less predatory than Microsoft, think again...

        Thought again... And again... Nothing... What predation are you talking about? Microsoft's is well known:

        • deliberately crashing non-Microsoft's software on Microsoft's operating system
        • deliberate withdrawal of specifications required for compatibility
        • deliberate changes of standards/formats to cripple competing software
        • se of one monopoly (Operating System) to build another (web-browser, office software) — this one is, actually, not only predatory, but also illegal.

        What has Google done to justify being called equally predatory?

    • by Abstrackt (609015) on Thursday December 04, 2008 @10:28AM (#25988429)
      We could call the game "Antitrust Frogger". You start a merger and jump out of the way just before you get hit by the DOJ. I'm not sure what your reward would be for making it to the other side of the road though...
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by camperdave (969942)
      Announce something to get the government's back up, wait until they've done loads and loads of preparation then rip their opportunity from under them just before they get chance.

      4. Access their research through Freedom of Information policies.
      5. Devise ways of sidestepping their arguments.
      6. Profit!!!
    • Re:Could be fun (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JanneM (7445) on Thursday December 04, 2008 @10:38AM (#25988537) Homepage

      Quite the opposite. The authorities were on the ball, gathered info and told the parties they'd likely be filing a formal complaint. The result: the putative monopoly was broken up almost before it began, with no damage to the marketplace and no long, hugely expensive trial and appeals that would have sucked money and energy from the state and the corporate parties alike. And the way they did it, if Google and Yahoo really thought they would win such a process they were still free to go ahead and face the consequences.

      Sounds like the state did a pretty good job in this case.

      • with no damage to the marketplace

        except for that piddly little matter of Yahoo's stock price ...
        • by STrinity (723872)
          Yahoo isn't the marketplace, and the market isn't damaged when a company fails. In fact, failure is often good for the market, though you wouldn't know it listening to the Bush and Obama people.
          • by theaveng (1243528)

            Oh my Deity. Did he just attack Obama?

            Wow. I knew the Obama as President criticism would start eventually, but I didn't think it would happen before he was even sworn-into office.

    • by qoncept (599709)
      The only downside is it's a waste of tax payers cash ...

      That, and the fact that there is no up side. Doesn't sound like a very fun (or responsible) game to me.
  • The DOJ won't help (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Thelasko (1196535) on Thursday December 04, 2008 @10:35AM (#25988513) Journal
    The way I see it, two things could happen:
    1. Google and Yahoo could partner, leading to a monopoly.
    2. Yahoo will go out of business, leading to a monopoly.
    There is no way to prevent a monopoly.
    • by krou (1027572) on Thursday December 04, 2008 @10:43AM (#25988591)
      The third option is if Yahoo and Microsoft team up, in which case there is a slim chance that it could counter Google's search monopoly.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by MosesJones (55544)

        So the third option is

        3. Have Yahoo team up with an already convicted monopoly (MS) to help stop Google becoming an monopoly

        Making MS stronger doesn't exactly help the consumer or do anything to weaken MS' already existing monopoly on the desktop (as found by the previous DoJ investigation).

        Rock, Hard place, Alaska in February

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by rhsanborn (773855)
          Microsoft has a desktop monopoly, and the government says that Microsoft has certain responsibilities not to abuse that monopoly. They don't have any goal to take actions to actively weaken the monopoly, and they don't have any goals to stop Microsoft from growing in other sectors (like advertising) in which they do not have a monopoly.
      • Google has a monopoly???

        A monopoly is defined as a "single source", but Google is hardly the only search engine in existence. Just off the top of my head there's MSN Search, Ask Jeeves, Ask.com, Altavista, AOLsearch, About, MIVA, LookSmart and more. I think this is a case of people using a word contrary to its true meaning. i.e. Doublespeak.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by N1AK (864906)
      I appreciate the point you are trying to get at, but your arguement is flawed.

      If Google got hold of Yahoo a company with market dominance to form a Monopoly WILL be formed.

      If they don't merge, and IF Yahoo go under, and IF Yahoo isn't bought out by Microsoft or a less obvious Internet competitor (News Corp? Facebook? etc) who continue it and finally IF all Yahoo users choose to migrate to Google, then you would have a Monopoly.

      I accept it could be argued both situations may well lead to the same s
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by nschubach (922175)

        Also, Google doesn't provide a proprietary service by any means. You don't NEED www.google.com to do your job, open your documents, or run your applications. At least, not right now.

        At any point in time, someone else could create a better search algorithm and steal users away from Google's search, ads, and possibly email. (Though I kind of wish some free services like Bigfoot.com would have stayed around as a mail redirector so you could change mail providers on a whim. [Disclaimer: I haven't checked in

        • GMail lets you forward all mail received to another account, with options to keep copies in your GMail account, archive copies in your GMail account (so they don't appear as new if you sign in to the web interface), or delete copies in your GMail account. They also don't forward spam messages.

          It's a great way to have a consistent email account that gets forwarded to a more personal account. Of course, you can also get your GMail with POP or IMAP if that's your desire.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by webreaper (1313213)
      Erm, it's already a monopoly. Does anyone actually use Yahoo? :)
      • by Kelbear (870538)

        It's more popular in Asia than the US.

      • by TheLink (130905)
        I use Yahoo search sometimes when google's search doesn't give me what I want (sometimes it doesn't). Microsoft's search isn't that bad either.

        I use Yahoo mail and Yahoo messenger too every now and then.

        I have a gmail account but I rarely use it.

        As long as Yahoo and MS's search engines are around, Google search isn't a monopoly at all.
      • I use Yahoo Yellow Pages sometimes.

        It's the only time I ever visit Yahoo, though, and that's maybe once a month or less.

    • I wouldn't really call a Google + Yahoo collaboration a monopoly. There are still plenty of search engines out there, and nothing about using Google or Yahoo (or any of their numerous holdings) prevents people from easily switching to other sites' services, or dividing their time between multiple sites. It's not like either Google or Yahoo provide a unique, patented service that others can't imitate - it seems to me to be a matter of time before someone perfects a suite of online utilities/applications th

    • Why do you think Yahoo would go out of business? It may not be Slashdotters first choice, but a lot of people use Yahoo and are happy with it.
    • There is. Come out with something better than Google. Not gonna happen? Tough. Suck it up, it's not like we even pay for the services Google provides (well, most of them).

      The average consumer is a spoiled brat. Yeah, I just took a swing at the Middle Class, tar and feather me. In my world, you have no right to Google's servers or services, and if they are too good at providing it, then it's your own damn fault for letting it happen and for letting it continue to happen. Nobody wants responsibility.

      • WHY do people continue to get it backwards?

        It's about Google leveraging its monopoly on search and so forth, no matter how legitimately gained and maintained, in other markets -- in this case, advertising (where Google really is squeezing people, in many ways).

        In a similar way, Microsoft was never actually legally found to have done anything wrong to gain its Windows monopoly. They were found to be illegally leveraging that monopoly in favour of Internet Explorer. And then that finding was overturned in a

    • by elrous0 (869638) * on Thursday December 04, 2008 @11:47AM (#25989385)

      I prefer a third option. Here goes:

      Yahoo, in a desperate bid to get MS's attention, hires actress Natalie Portman to seduce me to enlist my help in the matter. After hours of outrageous sex, including several acts involving grits, she convinces me to help. I go over to Bill Gates' house to resell him on the idea of a Yahoo/MS merger. Gates, grateful for my help and insight in the matter, agrees to call Ballmer up and talk to him about it, gives me a $2 million tip, and lets me take hom the biggest TV in his house. The next day, after another night of crazy mad oily sex with Natalie Portman, I meet up with Ballmer and Yang at Yahoo HQ. I make them apologize to one another, secure the deal to create a new search engine giant to compete with Google (called "MiYahoo"), get a nice portfolio of stock in the new company, then leave to go rent a goat and a midget for another night of insane smelly filthy sex with Natalie Portman.

      Problem solved.

      • by Toll_Free (1295136) on Thursday December 04, 2008 @12:21PM (#25989941)

        I read this as

        After hours of pointless masturbation, I ate my body weight in grits

        Then I reread it, and my mind babelfished it the same way.

        Anyone else have that problem? :)

        --Toll_Free

        • by elrous0 (869638) *

          pointless masturbation

          That, sir, is an oxymoron.

        • by Hillgiant (916436)

          All I got was:

          fnord fnord fnord desperate fnord fnord fnord help fnord fnord fnord grits frnord fnord fnord grateful fnord fnord fnord TV fnord fnord fnord oily fnord fnord fnord giant fnord fnord fnord nice fnord fnord fnord goat fnord fnord fnord.

          Problem solved.

          Yours makes a little more sense... I guess.

      • ...and here I went out and bought one, damn! He just hangs around all day now, staring at me, judging me.

        • by elrous0 (869638) *
          These days you can rent anything: midgets, goats, donkeys, a surprising number of cast members from "The Facts of Life", anything you can imagine.
    • Yup, that's pretty much Capitalism.

      Eventually, you end up with a monopoly, when one company provides a product an order of magnitudes better than another.

      I was an ardent Yahoo user until about 2003, and then switched to Google. Pretty much when I got a :beta: email account on GMail. Yahoo = megabytes of storage and Google gave me a gig. Then, once I started using them, I found their search to be SO much better.

      Yahoo had it in the early to late 90s. Now it's Googles game. And ANY Corp. entity MUST act l

  • by Samschnooks (1415697) on Thursday December 04, 2008 @10:51AM (#25988667)
    Any business transaction that Google may try to do will be under scrutiny. They are the: Coke, Kleenex, Jell-O, Sheetrock, Skillsaw, etc... of the internet. A brand name that is also a name for a type of product - a marketer's wet dream.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      Yes and no -

      Marketing a product that has so much brand recognition that you can spend/focus less on brand awareness and more on getting customers in the door is wonderful (and much more quantifiable).

      But when your brand name or product becomes synonymous with the type of product itself, then, in the case of a Q-Tip, your product name no longer sells itself, but instead sells every cotton swab in the industry.

  • by GMonkeyLouie (1372035) <gmonkeylouie @ g m a i l . com> on Thursday December 04, 2008 @10:56AM (#25988741)

    Honestly, if I were Google, I would only be trying to buy Yahoo for Flickr, which seems extremely synergistic with Google's current offerings.

    Yahoo's search tech is archaic and inferior, Yahoo's e-mail is not up to par with GMail, and most Yahoo site features are irrelevant and poorly executed on their site.

    Both sites have a daily reach of about 30%, maybe they just want to make Yahoo.com redirect straight to Google. That would be good for a laugh and some ad revenue.

    • Google was never going to purchase Yahoo. Google was going to infuse Yahoo with money for a partnered search deal to protect Yahoo from Microsoft, but the DoJ thought that was practically a monopoly, while the DoJ thought it would be great if Microsoft BOUGHT Yahoo, and that wouldn't be a monopoly.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Look at the search market share to see why.

        a combined Yahoo-google alliance would have control around 80% of the market. (google holds around 60-80%, yahoo around 10-15% depending on the source)

        A Yahoo-Microsoft deal would only control around 20-30% of the market share, still short of what google already has and thus the DOJ would view MS in this area as making itself more competitive.

        A very diverse company like MS is treated as though it was sepperate companies, their monopoly in one area does not impact o

        • Normally I never respond to ACs, but you bring up a point worth responding to.

          Google's share is around 70% given September's reports. Microsoft and Yahoo make up basically 30%.

          A partnership is not the same as one company controlling both. Yahoo wouldn't control Google's search market, and Google wouldn't fully control Yahoo's search market. It is a partnership.

          Regardless, 90% market share, while appearing dominant is far less of a monopoly as Microsoft's monopoly for 20 plus years in a variety of markets.

    • Because that dinosaur has apparently patented advert placement in search results .. http://www.internetnews.com/ec-news/article.php/3387211 [internetnews.com]
    • Foreign markets. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MMInterface (1039102)
      I think one thing you are overlooking is foreign markets. Yahoo has a larger market share for some of its services in some nations outside the US: for example, Yahoo Search in Japan. When you look at that market it almost seems like the consumer prefers some of these "inferior" services. The most popular sites there don't usually resemble the clean minimalist design that Google services tend to have. That is until you consider that they are usually viewing the mobile site on their cellphone, and services li
  • What's his name (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Enderandrew (866215) <enderandrew.gmail@com> on Thursday December 04, 2008 @11:13AM (#25988969) Homepage Journal

    Who was the douche that threw his company under the bus, calling out Yang and saying Yahoo was stupid for not immediately selling out to Microsoft? He didn't care about the future of Yahoo as a company. He wanted a quick payout of his stock. He threw a fit, started a huge fight with the board, made Yahoo look bad, and not only is the future of Yahoo in question, but his own stock has plummeted. Now a Microsoft deal may happen, but for far less. The bitching caused the stockholders to lose their ass, and their company. I say that is a job well done.

  • Correction (Score:3, Funny)

    by brian0918 (638904) <brian0918@@@gmail...com> on Thursday December 04, 2008 @11:50AM (#25989461)

    DOJ Was 3 Hours Away From Violating Google's Rights

    There, fixed that for ya.

  • So when Microsoft eventually mops up Yahoos' 361 patent, that won't be an antitrust violation ?

  • To people who think antitrust law are not really harmful because they are used rarely, this should be a reminder.

    (those who think they are helpful, I'm not even talking to you)

Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious animal on earth.

Working...