Why did Google leave outgoing Yahoo! chief executive Jerry Yang heartbroken at the search engine altar? If you believe the words chief ad broker and CEO Eric Schmidt funneled through The New York Times, Google chafed at the prospect of winning a Department of Justice (DoJ) antitrust suit. "We canceled the deal with about one …
Follow Google on Line Spout. http://www.linespout.com?q=google
Funny you should mention "monopoly"
Because that *in itself* should've been sufficient to bring up an anti-trust suit since de facto monopolies (those not established by a government for the sake of simplicity) are inherently anticompetitive and that any a firm's grip on the market is like gravity--the more you have, the stronger the pull you make until you become like a black hole--impossible to escape without making an unacceptable sacrifice.
You deserve a Pulitzer for this one, Cade, very nicely done.
The whole thing with Yahoo was for the sole purpose of eliminating a competitor. The G men kept MS & Y! apart like a bible thumping chaperone at the parish social. Finally the boys from Redmond decided not to eat at the Y! and Mr. Market figured Y! needed to put out or shut up. When Y! got stuck sitting in the corner like a bitter old maid who couldn't buy their way into a tush push for a two bob bit. Meanwhile, the G men are grinding hard on the Cole Train. Bring it on sucka, this is their kinda shit.
Ah now, talking of monopolies...
This article set me thinking.
Now what if the present financial sector crisis was brought about be trade union activity?
Maybe the sector crisis or an equivalent of it might have been brought about by armed hostilities or even major terrorist activities.
Get the drift?
Had any other identifiable party been identified wth placing western finance in such dire circumstance and risk it would be smoked, hosed, bashed and quartered.
But no. It is the banking and finance sector s all is truly well.
But on the otherhand, I wonder what an "enemy within: analysis would make of it all?
Should the troops be sent in? Or maybe we should all hand over our hard earned sheckles and kaboodles so that the finance sector can take 20 or so billions of bonuses next year as well.
OT for sure but what say you?
Now, what about those organisations and employees that may risk financial disaster because of finance sector -erm- effectiveness at awarding each other hooj bonuses. Can they sue the banks for willful mismanagement? (I thought not)
OT for sure and lovely with equal surety :)
My earlier post is an attempt to rationalise ideas and concepts associated with 'monopoly'.
Somehow, for all the good google brings in the form of its innovation, brilliance, insights and experience it is nought compared to the destructive powers of 'enemy within' finance sector.
Proof; wait until 2012 when the havoc wreaked by finance sector is starting to level out.
Don't want the M word
Google has got to >50% in search and will continue to grow. They don't need yahoo and acquiring yahoo might have just given them a month or tw's boost.
Of course if they had acquired yahoo then they would have attracted attention from DOJ. They will anyway and don't need to put even more fuel on the M-word fire.
Balanced up, the small potential benefit from acquiring yahoo would have been much smaller than the extra problems it would have done.
I still reckon the major thing that Google wanted to do was to bait Microsoft into upping it's offer.
The algorithm has been cracked.
GCHQ did it in August.
I found the laptop on the 07.20 from Croydon last week and passed it on to a small start-up in Newcastle.
Expect an announcement/floatation soon.
I, for one, will be heavily investing in whyeye.com
Yahoo/Google Herring was a win/win for Google.
I honestly don't think Google intended to go through with it.
They had a win/win deal going by giving Yahoo the impression of an alternative to Microsoft.
If microsoft had upped it's offer then it would have depleted Microhoo/Micropoo cash reserves.
If Microhoo fell apart then Google has reduced the chances of a competitor arising for a while. It was a win/win for them.
Thanks for that, cleared it up nicley for me, especially
"When Y! got stuck sitting in the corner like a bitter old maid who couldn't buy their way into a tush push for a two bob bit"
Tirade part 3
Lose a couple of trillion?
Governments to finance sector: why, here's a couple of trillion more and please try not to lose that. Would you like a pint of blood too?
Three? and the shirts of our backs?
For this the executive officers may expect a swift dismissal and redundancy/severance package?
In my view the assets should be seized and executive officers imprisoned awaiting investigation.
I doubt if Microsoft, Google, Apple, intel and IBM as a combined group could do a fraction of the damage and wonder if not only widespread usage be considered as a monopoly but also the potential to harm. I don't think google has much potential to harm at all.
@ AC in triplicate..
leave off the coffee, son.
The point I was trying to make is that the present concept of monopoly would appear to outdated. Somehow risk has to be factored in (if the finance sector is so independent how come so many of those independent organisations are displaying the same difficulties?)
My guess is that monopoly is not best served by thinking along 'no other choice' lines but needs other criteria factored in.
Additional comment from AC
One extension I wish to make to an earlier post is to add that not only should organizational assets be seized but also the assets of executives and high bonus earners with proviso on condition of awarded bonuses. Not regarding google, Microsoft, Apple, intel, ... but of the financial sector of course :-)