Anti-Microsoft Google / Yahoo alliance?
p2pnet news | Product News:- What would happen if Yahoo decided there was no way it wanted to get into bed with Bill the Boyz, even for $44.6-billion?
What if it decided YaHoogle looked to be a more tempting prospect?
It would, “consider a business alliance with Google Inc as one way to rebuff a $44.6 billion takeover proposal by Microsoft, a source familiar with Yahoo’s strategy said on Sunday,” according to Reuters.
But it’s probably much more of a negotiating ploy than a serious move because bottom line, it’s all about the bottom line.
“Yahoo management is considering revisiting talks it held with Google several months ago on an alliance as an alternative to Microsoft’s bid, that source said,” says the story.
“At $31 a share, Yahoo believes the bid undervalues the company, two sources said.
“A second source close to Yahoo said it had received a procession of preliminary contacts by media, technology, telephone and financial companies. But the source said they were unaware whether any alternative bid was in the offing.”
Meanwhile, “in a memo to Yahoo employees on Friday, which was obtained by Reuters on Sunday, Yahoo leaders wrote: ‘We want to emphasize that absolutely no decisions have been made — and, despite what some people have tried to suggest, there’s certainly no integration process underway’,” says Reuters, adding:
“The Wall Street Journal reported on its Web site on Sunday that Google’s chief executive Eric Schmidt called Yahoo’s chief executive Jerry Yang to offer his company’s help in any effort to thwart Microsoft’s bid.”
Also See:
get into bed – Microsoft $44.6-billion bid for Yahoo, February 1, 2008
Reuters – Yahoo may consider Google alliance, source says, February 4, 2008
Subscribe
to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.phpNet access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.








February 4th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Ah… this is where the date got messed up… from here on out, (currently) all years are 2005 in the Also See section.