Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Microsoft Yahoo! Technology

MS Buying Yahoo? Bad Idea, Even At a Discount 141

Posted by timothy
from the bing-bing-bing-we-have-a-winner dept.
jfruhlinger writes "Nearly four years ago, Microsoft tried to buy Yahoo, but eventually withdrew the offer in the face of resistance from Yahoo's leadership. This week rumors resurfaced that Microsoft was once again bidding on the struggling Internet pioneer, this time for significantly less money. But even at a discount, it might be a pretty bad idea for Microsoft to get involved in the unfocused, money-losing Yahoo."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MS Buying Yahoo? Bad Idea, Even At a Discount

Comments Filter:
  • ballmer (Score:3, Funny)

    by KingAlanI (1270538) on Saturday October 08, 2011 @12:54AM (#37646210) Homepage Journal

    "scratch that. going to fucking kill ourselves, not google."

  • Leave it for Alibaba (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mark_elf (2009518) on Saturday October 08, 2011 @12:59AM (#37646218)
    Jack Ma wants to regain control of Alibaba http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/01/technology/alibaba_yahoo/index.htm/ [cnn.com], makes more sense for them than for Microsoft. I wonder if the MS interest is just to drive the price up for some reason.
  • by JakiChan (141719) on Saturday October 08, 2011 @01:01AM (#37646224)

    Say what you want about Yahoo! but it is not "money-losing". Yahoo! is profitable. Yes, top-line growth has been a problem but management of the bottom line has driven profits UP not DOWN. Bing may be losing money hand over fist but Yahoo! is still bringing in the cash.

    I bet the folks who love to keep beating on Yahoo! also kick puppies for fun...

    • by blackicye (760472)

      Say what you want about Yahoo! but it is not "money-losing". Yahoo! is profitable. Yes, top-line growth has been a problem but management of the bottom line has driven profits UP not DOWN. Bing may be losing money hand over fist but Yahoo! is still bringing in the cash.

      I bet the folks who love to keep beating on Yahoo! also kick puppies for fun...

      The point was never whether they were "money-losing" the argument was always that the company was _grossly_ overvalued at $44.6B.
      And that Yahoo was stupid enough to refuse that offer when it was made.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by JakiChan (141719)

        Uhm, no. The submitted said in his submission that Yahoo! is losing money. It is not. As much fun as it may be to kick Y! I think one should at least use the facts. MICROSOFT is losing money fast, but Y! is profitable.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          MICROSOFT is losing money fast

          You mean the company that made $23 billion last year [yahoo.com]? Nearly as much in profit as Google's revenue and 3x their profits. 65% more profits than Apple. That company? That company is losing money fast? Really?

          Really?

          No seriously.. really?

          • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

            by MicroSlut (2478760)
            Dude, this is /. If you say SharePoint, they say Windows ME! If you say Dynamics, they say BSOD!, if you say Office, they say Ribbon! I suffered a decade of panics due to poorly written nix drivers and years of headaches putting up with glitches in GroupWise. If posters want to believe that Microsoft is on the brink of failure because IE is losing popularity and Bing has as much traffic as Dogpile, let them. It is the year of Linux on the desktop, for the nth year in a row and 640K should be enough. I
            • by symbolset (646467) *
              Have a Nice picture [businessinsider.com]. And in a few days they report again.
              • by Anonymous Coward

                You do know that is only for one small division of MSFT that the rest props up? Every quarter some dumbass analysts point to this and that Windows isn't growing more share as fast as it used to (which is a BS stat when a market is saturated). It's selling more copies of Windows faster than it ever has, though admittedly Apple has almost as much market share as it had in the 80s again.

            • Bing will win.

              You just can't compete with the advantage of bundling. Remember that most users are not technologically literate. When they want to find something, they just type it into their address bar. They don't even know properly what an address is. That is why IE remains by a substantial margin the world's most popular browser - not because it's the best, but because it comes installed on every new computer, and most users don't see any reason to try another. In the same way, all those users who stick
              • by Anonymous Coward

                IE remains by a substantial margin the world's most popular browser...and most users don't see any reason to try another. In the same way, all those users...are going to end up using Bing.

                You aren't joking, are you? IE comes installed with Windows and MOST users go out of their way to install something else. With a 42% IE market share, how does this fit your "Bing!" theory? Windows isn't gaining market share and it's not possible for people not using Windows to install IE. Good luck with it though, Steve.

              • Sorry but the world is slowly moving past desktops. iPads don't have IE, Android devices don't have IE, etc. That's why MS is in such a panic over mobile. They have lost their leverage in those segments. They might regain some of that, if they can stop shooting themselves in the foot long enough. Desktops won't completely die for a good while, but their relevance slowly erodes.
              • by bmuon (1814306)

                Remember that most users are not technologically literate.

                That used to be true. People are getting more and more tech savvy and everyone in the tech industry is aware of it.

                • by Rob Y. (110975)

                  People are getting more and more tech savvy and everyone in the tech industry is aware of it.

                  Well, I'm pretty tech savvy, and I couldn't get a co-worker's IE to use Google as its default search engine (IE7, I think - whatever our employer allows on the machine - I run Firefox on mine, so I don't know what the IE version is). Sure, after a few non-obvious clicks, I could get to Microsoft's web page for adding a search plug-in, but it wouldn't load the Google engine. I think it said the IE version wasn't supported or something. Whatever. Whether intentional or not, it means there are a lot of PC'

          • by Anonymous Coward

            Microsoft's Live division is a money pit. About $6B in accumulated losses so far. Microsoft even tried paying people to use Bing.

            Thankfully, Microsoft sold about 400 million Windows 7 licenses, and the Office upgrade business is very strong. They can continue to throw money into the Bing bonfire, and still make huge profits.

            The real problem, is that how would Microsoft make their money back if they bought Yahoo? Microsoft has proven that they don't "get" the Internet. Live Places? Hotmail? Bing? And

          • I think the grandparent was talking specifically about the search market. Last figures I saw showed that Bing was still losing money. Microsoft makes insane amounts on Windows and Office (and probably quite a lot on Android now, since they get $15 of profit for every Android handset sold...) which lets them make a loss in a lot of other markets without it making a dent in their bottom line. A few years ago, MSN was making a loss of $20m annually on their UK portal alone, but they were making something li
          • He said Bing, not MS. And you had the trouble of changing his quoted text.

            Not sure if trolling or just can't read.

            • by drawfour (791912)
              I'm not sure if you're just trolling or you just can't read. Here is the full text from the reply [slashdot.org], fully quoted:

              Uhm, no. The submitted said in his submission that Yahoo! is losing money. It is not. As much fun as it may be to kick Y! I think one should at least use the facts. MICROSOFT is losing money fast, but Y! is profitable.

          • by JakiChan (141719)

            You misquoted me, so you fail at trolling. I said Bing was losing money which it is. It's losing crazy amount of cash.

            I'm sure Office and Win7 can subsidize it for a long time, but facts are facts. Y! Is profitable, Bing is not.

          • Apple net income [marketwatch.com] FY 2010 (ended Sept 2010) = $14.01 Billion
            Microsoft net income FY 2010 (ended June 2010 using your link above) = $18.67 Billion
            18.76 / 14.01 = 1.34 (134%), so what you meant is that for FY 2010, MS was 34% more profitable than Apple, not 65%.

            But wait, those aren't for the same time period, they're FYs are off by 3 months. Let's compare the 4 most recent quarters reported for each company.
            Apple's July 2010-June 2011 profit = Q4'10 = $4.31B + Q1'11 = $6B + Q2'11 = $5.99B + Q3'11 = 7.31B = $23

    • I haven't exactly been caring about what they've been up to, but afaik they been selling all sorts of assets and firing swathes of employees to stay profitable... and their brilliant CEO was taking $50 million salary a year... while completely eviscerating whatever was left of the company.
      • firing swathes of employees

        Yes, that is what's known to people like the OP as "managing the bottom line"

    • by Hadlock (143607) on Saturday October 08, 2011 @04:16AM (#37646660) Homepage Journal

      They're a revenue stream for some hedge fund or conglomerate, sure. You can bank on them having level revenue for the next 2-5 years, but there's no growth left there. R&D got the axe years ago, and they haven't developed a noteworthy product or championed a cause that anyone can remember since free email (yahoo mail) and yahoo maps... which are third rate backwaters these days. All that is left is a bunch of degree mill MBAs looking to pump up the company to sell it to investors... same as AOL. The trade name doesn't hold the glamour or instill the brand pride it did in the first half of the 00's.
       
      Sure, profits are UP, but at what cost? Employee morale must be at an all time low, they are hemorrhaging long time employees, the board of directors is directionless and they have had no CEO with a sense of direction since they kicked out Jerry Yang. The soul of the company is dead and the product they sell is a commodity; no one has faith that you could reasonably improve the shareholder value by 20% in five years.
       
      They could bring back Jerry Yang, but that would involve scrubbing the entire board of directors to get him back; not likely. Yahoo is circling the drain, investors are looking for a way to cash out without alarming anyone, but nobody is buying, which only drives their stock price lower. So long, Yahoo, and thanks for all the free email!

    • by Dunbal (464142) * on Saturday October 08, 2011 @05:36AM (#37646876)

      I bet the folks who love to keep beating on Yahoo! also kick puppies for fun...

      Hey!

    • by tukang (1209392)

      Let's look at their net income for the past 4 quarters:

      129.60 -- 142.65 -- 210.44 -- 294.09

      Their income is consistently decreasing and if they continue on the same path, it won't be long before they do start losing money. There is also no reason to believe that they will not continue on the same path they have been for the past decade.

      • by thegarbz (1787294)

        There is also no reason to believe that they will not continue on the same path they have been for the past decade.

        What's that path? The path that saw them steadily rising since the dot com pop? Suffer through the economic crunch and then hold steady even today as the world's stock markets are plunging? Or the company which has posted an UPWARDS trend in net profits since 2009 and have had a positive trend since 2002?

        Seriously let me guess, you're a global warming denier too cherry picking only the stats that suit you to make your argument.

        Now let's look back at the figures:
        Starting where you left off:

        294 -- 213 -- 310

        • by tukang (1209392)

          Everything is relative. If you compare what they've achieved since the dot-com pop against what Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Baidu, Amazon, eBay, Alibaba etc. have achieved, Yahoo simply comes up far short. As for "cherry-picking", I didn't pick some arbitrary period of quarters. I picked the most recent ones.

          Seriously, what is Yahoo's future? Which areas do you see them growing in? Where are they leaders? This is why people don't want to invest in Yahoo and its stock price is performing so poorly.

          • by thegarbz (1787294)

            Again looking through black coloured glasses? Their stocks are reasonably steady which in the past year has been remarkable. They have trended the NASDAQ index really well and most movements in their price represent movements in the industry on the whole.

            What is their future? Who knows. I don't see them growing in any areas at the moment. Mind you I didn't see Apple growing in any areas back in the days of bright fluro coloured girls computers either. That's the wonderful thing about predicting the future y

  • by blackicye (760472) on Saturday October 08, 2011 @01:02AM (#37646228)

    It was a bad idea then, it's no better of an idea now (and some would argue worse.)

    Why not wait another year or two and buy Yahoo for an even bigger discount, something closer to free.

    • by Pausanias (681077)

      Agreed. Yahoo is around only because there is a % of people who could only be bothered to "learn the internets" once, therefore they are still slaves to Yahoo Groups/Yahoo Mail/all that awful stuff. Most of these people somehow appear to wind up in my kids parent/teacher associations, basically anyone who is technically clueless but needs to organize online stuff. They looked into it once, in the 90s, and now they can't be bothered to learn any of the newer solutions.

      Now, Yahoo actually did some pretty cool

      • by EdZep (114198)

        I belong to a club that uses Yahoo Groups for organizing. The members like that it functions as a mailing list. And, one feature we haven't been able to find elsewhere, is that events on the calendar can be set up to do periodic auto-notifications via email. We do see weaknesses in Yahoo Groups, and would appreciate suggestions.

  • by Required Snark (1702878) on Saturday October 08, 2011 @01:09AM (#37646248)
    "a pretty bad idea for Microsoft to get involved in the unfocused, money-losing Yahoo."

    Am I wrong, or is the phrase "unfocused, money-losing" pretty much the definition of the stuff that Microsoft is rolling out these days? SilverLight, Bing, Zune, .NET languages, ...

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Microsoft has always been a software company, with a focus on languages (remember, their first product was BASIC). Silverlight is a development platform and .NET languages are, well, languages. Those make perfect sense for a software company to produce.

      Where do Bing and Zune fit in? Probably nowhere. But keep in mind that in order to be have successful products, you have take risks. Most of those risks will turn out to be unprofitable, but you don't know which ones will turn out to be profitable beforehand

      • All of them fit. Google's strategy is to offer a crapload of 'free' services to end users. I put free in quotes because, while the users don't pay Googlef any money to use their stuff, Google does make money off every user. How? By collecting information about them and using it to sell targeted advertising to a bunch of different people. Every service they offer is one more reason for people to stay where Google can track them, which gives them more information to use, which makes their targeted advertising

      • It's difficult to determine which of Google's services are actually making money. Google is in the market of harvesting huge amounts of data about people and using that to present them with targeted adverts. Anything that gives the more data about users or more places to put adverts contributes to this, but the profits will most likely show up elsewhere. This is especially true for some of their mobile services. Google Maps Mobile, for example, lets them track where a user goes, but doesn't show any ads
      • by Locutus (9039) on Saturday October 08, 2011 @10:57AM (#37648202)
        that "focus" on languages has always been more about locking developers( and therefore software ) to their Windows platform. Silverlight is about limiting or stopping Adobe Flash because not only did Adobe become cross platform but Flash is a development platform which works across all platforms. This kind of thing is a threat to Microsoft's revenue stream( Windows ). So that's why Silverlight was created. As for MS .NET, that was in response to Java which is cross platform and the same rules apply regarding protection of the revenue stream. The kind of protectionism I talk about is evident in most all of the exposed emails from court cases which made public internal Microsoft email and depositions.

        Because Microsoft's entire revenue base is tied to the Windows OS and it is a substantial revenue stream, protecting it at all costs( in the billions annually ) is business as usual and has worked for them for 20 something years. The funny thing is, they never had to compete in the portable space( disconnected mains power ) much and it never was much of a threat to the desktop or server. Apple changed that with the iPod/iTunes and how it showed great usability outside of the Microsoft ecosystem. It also expanded the Apple brand and sold desktops. Along came the iPhone and the Vista crapware and people really started taking non-Microsoft platforms seriously. GNU/Linux on the server side was doing quite well too. Zune was an attempt to curb the iPod craze but nobody fell for it since the Apple brand meant more than the Microsoft brand and you were not cool if you were Zuned. BING is Microsoft's attempt to limit Google's growth and brand and it too is failing and costing Microsoft billions. long story.

        LoB
    • by c (8461)

      > Am I wrong, or is the phrase "unfocused, money-losing" pretty much
      > the definition of the stuff that Microsoft is rolling out these days?
      > SilverLight, Bing, Zune, .NET languages, ...

      No, no... those are focused on money-losing. Unless someone has a better explanation?

      • I'm sure it's all a part of a very complex non-linear algorithm, no doubt developed by the infallible Bill Gates over a scone and a cup of Earl Grey, as he meditated about the profitability of a butterfly in China. Or, it's all they've got. Maybe both!

        Cheers.

    • by hedwards (940851)

      I'm not sure about Bing or Zune, but I'm pretty sure that .NET and SilverLight are best seen as products there to protect Windows marketshare.

    • I hate to break it to you but .NET, especially ASP.NET is hugely successful and wildly popular. This leads to sales of Visual Studio, Windows Server and SQL Server which makes Microsoft a not insignificant amount of money.

  • by unixisc (2429386)
    But they already have their own search engine Bing, or is that worse than Yahoo? Why would they be interested in Yahoo @ all? The only company that could make a good case for buying them is Apple, so that they can use something other than Google for their native search services on the iPad and others. Alternately, whoever buys WebOS can also buy Yahoo, so that they'd not have to enrich Google despite people choosing a non-Google tablet or phone.
    • Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)

      by teg (97890) on Saturday October 08, 2011 @01:42AM (#37646324) Homepage

      But they already have their own search engine Bing, or is that worse than Yahoo? Why would they be interested in Yahoo @ all? The only company that could make a good case for buying them is Apple, so that they can use something other than Google for their native search services on the iPad and others.

      Yahoo! has stopped doing search themselves, search has been handled by Microsoft [searchalliance.com] for a couple of years now. So there is no value there... the value would be in yahoo.com, Flickr and various other web services.

      • Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Hadlock (143607) on Saturday October 08, 2011 @04:40AM (#37646720) Homepage Journal

        To further your point, within a week of installing the new CEO at Yahoo, they signed on Microsoft to do both their search and advertising for them. This is snarky to say, but it's true - Microsoft already owns them. Yahoo is a revenue stream for Microsoft, without any of the risk involved for Microsoft's share price or litigious liability. Next to installing their own executive at Nokia last year, this was the ultimate un-acquisition. All of the benefits with no downsides and zero long term liability.

  • by satuon (1822492) on Saturday October 08, 2011 @01:37AM (#37646314)
    I think of google as a search engine that happens to have a web page which you can use if you don't have a search bar in your browser. But when I go to yahoo's page, it looks more like a news site than a search portal. To me it looks like an ordinary website, not much different from cnn.com.
    • by msobkow (48369) on Saturday October 08, 2011 @02:26AM (#37646430) Homepage Journal

      Very true. I have an email account at Yahoo (had it for years), but other than that I've never knowingly used any of their services since Google beat them at the search game. They're a good news aggregator, but if they disappeared there would still be hundreds of sites filling that niche. In fact, the only reason I end up reading their news is that I get taken to the page when I log out of my email account.

      But I wouldn't say they're "unfocused" as the summary says, and it's been made clear that the summary is completely wrong about them losing money. Like most web-based companies, they're constantly on the lookout for "the next big thing." Their big problem is they've never really found "the next big thing", though they've developed and deployed a lot of "me too" services.

      Despite that, they're a far more recognizable brand than "Bing", and unlike Bing, their search results seem to be on-topic (just checked a couple queries.) Apparently Yahoo still has a few tricks in their search engine that they could teach Microsoft.

    • by formfeed (703859)

      But when I go to yahoo's page, it looks more like a news site than a search portal.

      Yes, back in the day, before web 2.0 the buzzword for this used to be "Portal". Not a search portal, just "portal": Kind of a news aggregator, search portal, and customizable start page in one. The theory was, that whoever could offer the coolest portal and convince users to make it their default startpage would control the internet.

      That was before tabbed browsing, session savers, and social websites. But the idea somehow still lingers on. Google still has the personalized start page, and facebook tries to

  • Money-losing!?! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dahamma (304068) on Saturday October 08, 2011 @01:38AM (#37646320)

    I know Yahoo isn't particularly trendy right now, but their 2010 EPS was 0.88 and they have made a profit so far every quarter on 2011.

    Calling them "money-losing" in a slashdot post isn't only completely incorrect and horrible journalism (thanks, Timothy), but lesser publications and individuals have been sued for libel for this sort of thing when it affects the stock price...

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      AOL used to make loads of money too.
      There's a bunch of things that's pretty obvious.
      1. They don't own the coretech of what drives their business.
      2. Customer loyalty and satisfaction arent what it used to be. No new features or comparitives. Exactly why use google?
      3. No real presence in the app space. their apps are the worst in iOS.
      4. No real presence in social. twitter, faceboock, google+
      5. CEO musical chairs.
      6. Large pockets of yahoo talent disappearing.

      Let's say they have make black. I think their trendi

    • Re:Money-losing!?! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by bloodhawk (813939) on Saturday October 08, 2011 @03:41AM (#37646580)

      but lesser publications and individuals have been sued for libel for this sort of thing when it affects the stock price...

      umm lesser publications? what could possibly pass as a lesser publication when it comes to financial information than /.? seriously if anything EVER said on here was used for stock decisions then the moron making said decisions was going to lose his money from the next guy that tried to sell him a bridge anyway.

      • by Mana Mana (16072)

        > [If] anything EVER said on here was used for stock
        > decisions then the moron [...]

        was you, babe. Groupon was critiqued here about 8 months ago. The leaders', not the artsy theatrical founder hipsters types, but the 2 guys calling the shots, past were analyzed, and lo and behold their serial-invariant-pump-and-dump behavior over the past _decade_ was exposed.

        I heard of Groupon through the NY Times 2 summers ago, at any rate it was then that I stopped and said, WTF is this site about? Honestly, I was

      • by Dahamma (304068)

        That part was sarcasm ;) But seriously, there have been a number of lawsuits over posts in Yahoo Finance forums in recent years...

    • by Hadlock (143607)

      Reading that, I don't think you understand the market Yahoo is in, or whoever told you about them was lying to you. Or you have significant interests in Yahoo's stock price.

      Looking at their quarterly statistics without looking at their product and the market as a whole is pretty short sighted. I don't think they've been "trendy" for quite a while, and I think this reflects on the fact that they haven't innovated in a market that for the last 10 years has been expected to drive bleeding edge web tech

      • by bryan1945 (301828)

        Spot on. Even my 65 year old mom tells me to "Google xyz" when she calls me to find out some obscure info (the last one being why the Seattle Mariner's mascot was a moose).

      • by Dahamma (304068)

        What? Did you read my post? It was only two sentences, and stated two unarguable facts - the summary said Yahoo loses money, and the truth is they make a (small) profit.

        Personally I don't disagree with you that Yahoo is screwed in the long term, but my post has absolutely NOTHING to do with my understanding of their market. It was a simple statement of "a profit is not a loss" and nothing more. To post as much as you did in response to that, I think you must be the one with the agenda :)

  • Better idea (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 08, 2011 @02:15AM (#37646402)

    Earth to Microsoft: Yahoo! is not worth $44 billion.
    You could buy General Motors lock, stock, and barrel for $14 billion, name all the cars "Google Sucks,"
    and get more bang for the buck. Heck, you'd have enough left over to buy Ford for around $16 billion,
    and you could name all those cars "Google Sucks More" and still have $14 billion left over for a big party

    -stolen from a post here a long while ago the first time this came around. still true-

  • what's a pioneed? a pioneer in need?

  • Why would MS really want to buy Yahoo at this stage?

    I thought last time around it was to try and sink it so MSN wouldn't have competition. But now with facebook and google and whatnot being much bigger players, that doesn't seem like a very workable plan.

    Or make some hybrid bastard child of MSN and Yahoo and turn into into the worst social networking site they possibly can and trumpet it as the "new facebook"?

    I just don't see it being ~all~ that attractive to MS. Yahoo runs a slightly (well, maybe
  • Depends on the motivation. Would they want to continue it or simply take their patent portfolio, some assets (datacenters, key employees, ...) and nuke the rest sky high?

  • by stefaanh (189270) on Saturday October 08, 2011 @03:45AM (#37646592)

    Lately there has been a rumour that the Chinese were after Yahoo!

    My guess is, "Yahoo!" is something is see Ballmer yell on stage, jumping around. "Bing!" is sounding like chinese to announce on stage.
    They are just trading the names.

    Just wait and Google.

  • The makers of the Zune and Windows Mobile teamed up with biggest second-rate mess on the internet. Makes perfect sense to me.

    • by bryan1945 (301828)

      Yep, if you're going to screw something up, go big. Oh, the songs they will write....

    • Agreed. Losing large sums of money online is a Microsoft forte. They do it well. They do it right. Its all part of a grand plan.
  • by Cruciform (42896) on Saturday October 08, 2011 @07:37AM (#37647188) Homepage

    You guys keep talking like MS is buying them for tech.
    Yahoo is like Google and Facebook. Their product is the user. The loyal, 15 year, highly profiled, user.

    Data centers and the like are mostly just a nice bonus on top.

  • Yahoo is so technically inept, it's embarrassing. Every try to log into Flickr, since Yahoo bought it? Frakking impossible.
  • Definitely, after all the losses MS has incurred over the past decade, they SHOULD definitely buy Yahooooooo!

    !

    [This message was brought to you by the Bill and Meldina Gates Foundation, promoting the global adoption of Monsanto's GMOs, the privatization (monopolization and destruction) of education, further securitized debt globally, and mercenary armies in Africa.]

  • There was an article [techuser.net] a couple of years ago that looked into the history of one of the patents. Patent 6,269,361 [google.com] that covers bid for advertisement placement in search results was developed by a company named Overture. Gates wanted it, but Yahoo bought the company in '03 for $1.63 billion. Microsoft started licensing the patent from Yahoo. There was also a settlement between Google and Yahoo over the patent. This could be the key that Microsoft wants to go after Google's ad words and keep any other compe
  • Buy Yahoo and rename Bing to....Yahoo! Then they'll have a big name search engine going head to head with Google.

Klein bottle for rent -- inquire within.

Working...