Recent Blog Posts
-
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:26 am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:45 am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:00 am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:36 am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:37 pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:41 am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:32 am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:29 pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:09 pm EDT -
Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
Apr 24 20099:47 am EDT
Links
- Felix Salmon

- DealBreaker

- Ryan Avent: The Bellows

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Chris Anderson

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- MarketBeat

- Michelle Leder

- John Quiggin

- The Panelist

- Andrew Leonard

- Streetsblog

- Brad Setser

- Michael Mandel

- Financial Crookery

- Kash Mansori

- Dean Baker

- Calculated Risk

- Free Exchange

- Curbed

- Lance Knobel

- Econospeak

- Carbon Tax Center

- Overcoming Bias

- Mark Thoma

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Barry Ritholtz

- Alexander Campbell

- The Bayesian Heresy

- Brad DeLong

- DealBook

- Greg Mankiw

- Deal Journal

- FP Passport

- Carl Bialik

- Marginal Revolution

- A Fistful of Euros

- Dan Gross

The Unedifying Google-Microsoft Fight
Herb Greenberg is unimpressed with the spectacle of Google lumbering in to the Microsoft-Yahoo ring, trying to spoil the deal before it happens. "The irony is obvious," he says. "So is the arrogance of Google."
Maybe it was simply nice of Eric Schmidt to offer his help to Jerry Yang on Friday should Yang be inclined to fight the Microsoft bid. But the NYT characterizes Schmidt's call as "unusually aggressive". And the official Google blog entry on the subject is pretty nasty in tone. "Microsoft's hostile bid for Yahoo! raises troubling questions," it says. "Could Microsoft now attempt to exert the same sort of inappropriate and illegal influence over the Internet that it did with the PC? Could a combination of the two take advantage of a PC software monopoly to unfairly limit the ability of consumers to freely access competitors' email, IM, and web-based services?"
Well, yes, is the obvious answer. But that would be illegal. And it's a bit rich to object to a merger on the grounds that the merged company could engage in illegal activities.
Interestingly, both the Google blog entry and the Microsoft response were written by the respective companies' top in-house lawyers. As John Battelle says, "someone tell the chief counsels to shut the f. up." I'm already nostalgic for the halcyon era of last Friday when Microsoft refused to use the word "Google" in its official communications.
Comments
If you are commenting using a Facebook account, your profile information may be displayed with your comment depending on your privacy settings. By leaving the 'Post to Facebook' box selected, your comment will be published to your Facebook profile in addition to the space below.





