AllThingsD » consortium

Exclusive: Silver Lake Finally Signs Yahoo NDA, as Talks Proceed With Bidders

Kara Swisher — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 19:08:27 +0000

Score one for Yahoo, it seems, getting some key private equity firms to sign its restrictive non-disclosure agreement to allow them a special peek at its business.

And now that includes Silver Lake, which has already had several discussions with Yahoo management and its board members, including co-founder Jerry Yang.

Silver Lake, which has perhaps been among the more aggressive of the possible bidders for Yahoo, had been a significant holdout over the NDA, because of provisions it felt were too onerous.

That included restricting “cross-talk” among the variety of suitors interested. Sources said Silver Lake had been discussing various scenarios related to Yahoo that might take a consortium of players to realize.

It seems it will agree to none of that, for now at least, joining several others who have also signed on the dotted line of secrecy. While Yahoo could have agreed to changes in the NDA, sources said the one Silver Lake agreed to was the same as others previously signed.

Those NDA-ready PE firms include TPG Capital and KKR. As of today, other bidders — such as Providence Equity Partners, Bain Capital, Blackstone and Hellman & Friedman — have not yet signed the document.

Yahoo had extended a deadline for doing to into this week, but firms can also get involved in later rounds of talks.

In addition, signing the NDA is not the end of the road for those who do not — Yahoo is a prominent public company and there are plenty of sources to talk to about its prospects.

But getting cooperation of Yahoo management could be critical, unless a bidder is contemplating making an unsolicited offer.

And that would be a tough road — just ask Microsoft.

Most of all, getting everyone to sign is important for Yahoo, which wants to control any sales or investment process and wants to avoid bidders taking control of its fate.

Thus, Silver Lake accepting the NDA is a big deal, since it had been considering hooking up with China’s Alibaba Group in a possible bid for all or part of Yahoo.

In addition, it has had success in a smaller but similar scenario around Internet telephony giant Skype, which it eventually sold to Microsoft for a lucrative upside.

As with Skype, Silver Lake is still working with Andreessen Horowitz, as I had previously reported. In fact, principal Marc Andreessen was present in a recent informational meeting Silver Lake had with Yahoo’s Yang.

I asked Silver Lake for comment about the NDA, bur it, um, deflected my swooping inquiry (inside joke alert!).

Yahoogle Redux? Why "Project Porcupine" Means Someone Is Definitely Going to Lose an Eye This Time.

Kara Swisher — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:07:20 +0000

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

You gotta hand it to those geniuses over at the Googleplex, thinking up adorkable names for all their various plots and schemes.

And for its latest look-see of the Yahoo situation, it has revived an old one: “Project Porcupine,” presumably from the old joke about how you hug a porcupine.

Very carefully.

Or maybe you don’t hug it at all, which is why all the rumors about the search giant hooking up with some unnamed private equity firms have been so unclear and, well, hard to grab ahold of.

According to sources, there are three clear aspects of what is actually going on:

1. Interest in using Google’s vast cash hoard as part of an investment it would make in a deal — meaning the company was approached, which it is, often.

2. Desire of Google’s crafty Chief Business Officer Nikesh Arora to perhaps find a clever way to get ahold of Yahoo’s display inventory to add to Google’s own fast-growing DoubleClick display advertising subsidiary — meaning Arora has been making the rounds at Yahoo to gauge interest.

3. Pure enjoyment in messing with Microsoft execs — who are now allied with Yahoo via its Bing search technology — as well as getting up any price the software giant would have to fork over to be part of any consortium that will be cobbled together in what is sure to be a hopelessly complex deal.

Whether incoming or outgoing or just an early version of Mischief Night, any one of these options — while interesting to contemplate — is certainly fraught for Google.

Remember the trouble three years ago when Google tried to do a simple search-advertising partnership with Yahoo, in order to pull it out of the clutches of Microsoft?

That effort ended with a resounding oh-no-you-don’t by the Justice Department, which promised an antitrust lawsuit was awaiting such a move to bring together the No. 1 and No. 2 search services.

And if it was a no-no then, any formal relationship or even arm’s-length investment in Yahoo by Google would inevitably be more closely scrutinized this time around.

In fact, what I wrote in 2008 applies a dozen times more emphatically today:

“It is bad for advertisers, it is bad for consumers, it is bad for innovation, no matter how well-intentioned Google is.”

Fast forward to today, after Google has already played a worrisome game of chicken with regulators over a number of acquisition deals — which makes trying to bring back Yahoogle akin to reaching for the third rail.

But that’s not what it’s going to do, in truth, because — even though Yahoo is still a tempting target — there is usually only one outcome to hugging a porcupine.

Ouch.

Novell Patent Grab: "Cheap Defensive Insurance"

John Paczkowski — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 21:43:55 +0000

An interesting new development in the big Novell patent sale that went down in November. Turns out that CPTN Holdings LLC, the Microsoft-led consortium that purchased the 882 patent portfolio, includes quite a few other industry heavyweights. According to a Dec. 9 merger notification posted by the Bundeskartellamt–Germany’s federal cartel office–other members of CPTN Holdings include Apple, Oracle and EMC.

Which is intriguing.

Because while companies do sometimes ally to pool patent rights, this seems an…unusual alliance. Why are these patents–which presumably cover networking, virtualization and data center technologies–important enough that Microsoft, EMC, Oracle and Apple would create an LLC to acquire and cross-license them? That’s not entirely clear, though a source inside one of the four companies tells me it was essentially an alliance of convenience.

“We get to buy in at a cheap price and get a license to a very valuable portfolio,” a source inside one of the four companies told me. “It’s cheap defensive insurance.”

McGraw-Hill: We Didn't Get Booted From the iPad Launch, Because We Weren't Part of It

John Paczkowski — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:39:37 +0000

Though it may have seemed like another of Apple’s perfectly timed third-party leaks (and I certainly mistook it for that), McGraw-Hill CEO Terry McGraw’s remarks to CNBC earlier this week were nothing of the sort. The publisher tells me that it was not privy to iPad prelaunch details and that to conclude otherwise is a misinterpretation of McGraw’s comments.

“As a company deeply involved in the digitization of education and business information, we were as interested as anyone in the launch of the new device, although we were never part of the launch event and never in a position to confirm details about the device ahead of time,” Steven Weiss, VP of Corporate Communications for The McGraw-Hill Companies said in a statement given to Digital Daily.

“On Tuesday afternoon Mr. McGraw appeared on CNBC in a wide ranging interview to discuss our earnings announcement and growth projections for 2010. His speculative comments about Apple’s pending launch, which he shared earlier in the day in a call with investors, were simply intended to suggest that if the new device were to use iPhone applications, many of our education products would be compatible with the technology and could be made easily available on it.”

Concluding, Weiss wrote, “Unfortunately, it seems that many mistakenly interpreted his comments as being more specific to yesterday’s announcement. It is also important to note that only the products of trade publishers were featured in the launch event. Our digital education programs are not in that category and were never part of those negotiations.”

It would seem, then, that contrary to other reports making the rounds, McGraw-Hill was not abruptly excised from Apple (AAPL) CEO Steve Jobs’s presentation yesterday after Terry McGraw’s disclosure on CNBC. And indeed, multiple sources close to the situation say that the CEO was not given a demo of the iPad before its launch and that McGraw-Hill (MHP) was never intended to be part of iPad launch event in San Francisco.

In retrospect, all McGraw really did on CNBC was to recycle and recast some comments made during the company’s Tuesday morning earnings conference call. Reading over those remarks, it seems plausible that he was simply excitedly regurgitating the same collection of rumor and speculation we all were during the run-up to the launch event.

“In the near future, you will undoubtedly see a McGraw-Hill e-book for the college market running on an Apple tablet,” McGraw said during the company’s earnings call. “All our titles on CourseSmart, the industry e-book consortium, are already available to students on an iPhone operating system. That’s because CourseSmart developed an iPhone application last summer with support from Apple. The goal was to have core educational content available on the iPhone operating system, which also makes it possible for e-books to run on new Apple devices using that system.”

Continuing, McGraw said, “Consider then the Apple tablet computer, which will be introduced shortly. There is a lot of secrecy about the introduction, but many expect that the Apple device will use the iPhone operating system. If that’s the case, we are confident that our CourseSmart e-books should run well right out of the box on any Apple Tablet. Stay tuned.”

Similar to what he told CNBC, right? Thing is, McGraw spoke with quite a bit more certainty during that interview. He said:

“Yes, they’ll make their announcement tomorrow on this one. We have worked with Apple for quite a while. And the Tablet is going to be based on the iPhone operating system and so it will be transferable.”

Those remarks don’t seem entirely speculative to me. Still, what was McGraw saying that we hadn’t already heard before? Maybe he reads the rumor sites too.

Does It Really Take a Year to Build a Pay Wall?

Peter Kafka — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 22:32:02 +0000

Is the pay wall plan for the New York Times too late? Will it generate too little? We won’t know for some time. Because the paper, which lost $35 million in the last quarter, says it won’t finish building the wall until 2011.

If that time frame puzzles you, you’re not alone. Plenty of pundits are wondering what kind of digital wall could possibly require a year’s worth of assembly. Can’t you just slap this stuff up pretty fast? It’s the Internet, after all.

New York Times (NYT) Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and CEO Janet Robinson, in their memo to employees, stress that the paper is moving with “appropriate care” in the next 12 months because “it will take time to get this right.”

Perhaps there are other reasons to move slowly. The duo’s memo, for instance, holds out the possibility that the paper might end up working with a partner. Steve Brill’s Journalism Online consortium, which is promising to create pay walls for a large number of papers, would be one option.

And last I heard, some News Corp. (NWS) officials were holding out hope that the Times could join its pay wall consortium. (News Corp. also owns this Web site.) If the Times does want to play well with others, moving slowly might make some sense while it waits for said others to catch up.

Meanwhile, some cynics (gasp!) have suggested that the Times announcement is merely a trial balloon. Though I have to confess I don’t see what that would accomplish.

But assuming the paper does go it alone and does intend to build this thing, would it really take a year? Yes, say two publishing sources with first-hand knowledge of both pay walls and big publishing companies.

The problem, in a nutshell, is that there are at least three different problems to solve: Authenticating current print subscribers so that they can get the online paper free; installing the “meter” that measures use for nonprint subscribers; and creating a commerce engine that can take orders, process subscriptions, figure out how to provide bundled offers–i.e., the cost of online access plus, say, a Kindle or Apple (AAPL) tablet subscription–etc.

None of this stuff ought to be rocket science, but that doesn’t mean it’s not hard, my pay wall experts say. Even if the Times builds its new pay wall on the bones of Times Select, the newspaper’s 2005-2007 attempt, it could easily take it a year to assemble this thing, they insist.

It’s possible that my sources are talking their book a bit–if building a pay wall were easy, there’d be less work for them. But I’m willing to take them at their word until someone convinces me otherwise.

Hearst Is Ready to Show Off Its Skiff E-Reader Platform, but It Doesn't Want to Tell Quite Yet. Is Anyone Ready to Buy?

Peter Kafka — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 11:30:07 +0000

Here’s another e-reader clamoring for attention in a Consumer Electronics Show full of e-readers: The Skiff Reader, produced by a company funded by publisher Hearst Corp. and supported by Sprint.

I’d go into detail about the device that Skiff is producing, but the company isn’t providing many crucial details.

Skiff won’t tell us when the Skiff Reader will go on sale, for instance, or how much it will cost. Or which “major consumer electronics company” is actually manufacturing it. And while Skiff is happy to show the device off to the press, it won’t let us photograph it.

So trust me on this when I tell you that the Skiff Reader appears to look and work a lot like Amazon’s Kindle DX. At least from the brief glimpse I got.

But in many ways, the Skiff Reader’s specs are beside the point, because the real point of its parent company isn’t to produce e-reader devices at all.

Skiff will indeed sell a gadget, whose price will likely vary depending on how many publications consumers agree to subscribe to. And Sprint (S) will provide users with a built-in wireless connection to download periodicals.

But the driving idea behind the company is to create a platform for producing, distributing and selling magazines and newspapers on a variety of devices.

In theory, at least, the publications Hearst distributes and sells should work on any gadget, whether it’s a smartphone like Apple’s (AAPL) iPhone, one of the many tablets coming on the market, or even a rival e-reader like Amazon’s (AMZN) Kindle. And Hearst doesn’t want to sell just its magazines and newspapers, but those of any publisher.

Does this sound familiar? It should because this is also the supposed goal of the “Hulu for magazines” consortium that Time Warner’s (TWX) Time Inc. created last year. And Hearst is a member of that joint venture.

So either Hearst’s company is going to compete with the platform the JV is supposed to create or Skiff will become part of the JV. Ask the various publishers in the group what they think will become of Skiff and you’ll get confusing responses, all of which sound like a muttered version of “I don’t know.”

That said, it seems likely that someone–perhaps the consortium, or perhaps a consortium member like News Corp. (NWS), which also owns this Web site–will end up buying at least a piece of Skiff.

At a minimum, Hearst officials are fairly candid about being interested in finding someone else to invest in the company; I’ve been told the publisher has plowed some $35 million into it to date.

I asked Skiff president Gilbert Fuchsberg about that prospect, and he politely demurred, as he did when I asked him about other Skiff specifics. But he was polite and good-natured about it, as you can see in this video:

[ See post to watch video ]

Condé Nast, With Help From a Nearly Naked Rihanna, Takes Another Step Toward Digital Magazines

Peter Kafka — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:33:01 +0000

Condé Nast has taken another small step into the future of digital magazines: The publisher has put a second edition of its GQ magazine up for sale on Apple’s iTunes Store.

Plunk down $2.99 and you’ll get you the January issue of the magazine, featuring a nearly naked Rhianna, for your iPhone or iPod touch.

Aside from the almost nude pop star on the cover, this one mimics GQ’s first digital issue, which it described as an experiment, in every way. Same price, same treatment of ads and content, etc. The publisher says it’s going to start putting out every issue of the magazine on iTunes going forward, though some stuff could get tweaked down the road.

Starting with the March 2010 issue, for instance, you’ll be able to buy new copies of the magazine “in app,” meaning that you won’t have to download a new app from iTunes every time a new issue comes out. GQ may also tweak pricing and/or offer a subscription instead of one-offs.

Condé says it is gearing up to put out another title in the same format, though it won’t say which one (Do you know? Drop me a line, please.) I should note that Hearst’s Esquire rolled out its first iTunes issue/app today as well. No coincidence that both publishers are starting with aspirational dude-centric titles.

This stuff doesn’t seem as sexy as the plans the publishers have for much heralded but little seen tablets that Apple (AAPL) and others are supposed to be cooking up. That’s probably in part because it’s always more fun to think about things that could exist, as opposed to ones that are already extant.

But I think this is as important, in its own way, as the tablet demos we’ve seen from Condé, Time Warner’s (TWX) Time Inc., Bonnier, etc. And as relevant as the “Hulu for Magazines” consortium the publishers have finally announced.

Because Condé’s iPhone app is a pretty good proxy for the stuff the magazine guys want to eventually produce. And if people are buying this one (Condé won’t release numbers yet, but says it will eventually), then that’s a hopeful sign for the more advanced stuff we’re supposed to see one day.

All Is Forgiven: "It's a Clean Slate," Says Andreessen About Lawsuit-Mad Skype Co-Founders

Kara Swisher — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:28:48 +0000

Silicon Valley legend and now VC Marc Andreessen was making the interview rounds after the settlement between the litigation-addled co-founders of Skype and all the various people they were suing was announced this morning.

He has been tight-lipped until now, due to the morass of lawsuits.

But, as Andreessen told BoomTown in a phone interview about the aggressive legal tactics of Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis that resulted in them finally seizing a stake in the Internet telephony giant by suing him and many other Silicon Valley players:

“We did not take it personally. It’s a clean sheet of paper.”

Well, it is actually a torn, stained and very worn out piece of paper, due to all the various machinations, but bygones!

Andreessen–who knows a thing or two about legal tussles, if you recall Netscape-Microsoft (MSFT)–said the real point is that it is time to focus on the business of Skype rather than fighting over who controls Skype.

“It’s really good to have everyone lined up and rowing in the same direction. We have to capitalize on the opportunity, because Skype is poised for a new wave of growth,” said Andreessen. “They have an amazing head of steam, because the logical way for voice and video communications to be conducted will be over the Web.”

Thus, Zennström and Friis now join the winning buyout group, Silver Lake Partners, Andreessen Horowitz and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, along with eBay, in owning Skype.

But Index Ventures, which was in, is–as Heidi Klum might say–out!

Under the terms of the agreement, Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis will take a 14 percent stake in the company they founded and then sold to eBay (EBAY), which will include an undisclosed investment by them.

I reported yesterday that the total was 13 percent–10 percent for the rights to key Skype technology held by the co-founders and the option to invest $83 million for three percent more.

In exchange, the pair will give Skype software essential to its operation and drop their various lawsuits against eBay and Skype’s buyers.

As for Zennström and Friis’s egregious use of the courts to grab their 14 percent stake in Skype, litigation they waged after losing their bid to buy Skype back from eBay, Andreessen was being very politic.

“We love working with aggressive founders and are in favor of founders being involved in their companies,” he said. “Great founders are not known for being shy and reserved. Look at Bill Gates. It’s not a question of personality, but of accomplishment.”

Noting that he had not worked with the pair before, Andreessen (pictured here) said, “We have a lot of respect for them. We think they’re geniuses.”

But, I queried, would he have used such tactics?

“It’s not a book club, it’s a super-serious, high-stakes game,” said Andreessen. “I don’t know; I’ve not been in the situation they’re in. If your goal in life is to avoid drama, this is probably the wrong industry for you.”

Perhaps, but I told him that I doubted even a battle-hardened entrepreneur like Andreessen would use the courts in such a manner to achieve business goals.

To each his own, said Andreessen!

“One of our investing mottos is that we invest in strength, not lack of weakness,” he said. “The question is how big is the opportunity.”

And, apparently, it is big enough to overlook all the drama that has gone on.

Andreessen said he expects to be more involved at Skype–which, with his $50 million investment, is the biggest deal in his $300 million fund–than other board members, noting different directors have different roles.

It’s a big board of 23, as I had previously reported. Zennström and Friis are each getting a seat.

“We are going to be helpful,” Andreessen said about his fund’s role at Skype. “We’re a company picker, looking for those that have the greatest potential.”

Andreessen, ever the diplomat, made sure to add that that also means doing business with Index, the member of his Skype consortium that departed as Friis and Zennström (pictured here) entered, due to stark tensions between the two sides.

“I have a lot of respect for [Index partners Danny Rimer and Mike Volpi] and expect to work with them a lot in the future,” said Andreessen. “In fact, I am talking to them today about two other deals.”

In other words, in Silicon Valley, the big wheel just keeps on turning.

I Love the Smell of Settlement in the Morning: Skype Founders Set to Get 10 Percent, Option to Buy Three Percent More and Two Board Seats

Kara Swisher — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:38:16 +0000

According to several sources close to the situation, barring any unforeseen delay, a deal to settle the Skype imbroglio is likely to be announced around the time the markets open tomorrow.

[UPDATE: The paperwork is taking longer than expected, so sit tight, said sources.]

While the massive agreement–which will settle three aggressive lawsuits lobbed by Skype co-founders Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis at a wide range of prominent Silicon Valley players–is not yet officially signed, sources said lawyers are apparently putting the finishing touches on the paperwork and have signature papers completed by both sides to be able to wrap it up quickly.

So, while nothing is ever over until it is over, it looks like it is over.

Sources also said that as part of the deal to end the legal madness, Zennström and Friis will get 10 percent of Skype back for rights to key software technology they control, an option to pay $83 million for another three percent of the Internet telephony service and two seats on the 23-member board.

Also, BoomTown has learned that a partridge in a pear tree will be thrown in to guarantee a lasting peace.

All kidding aside, the settlement is proof that squeaky wheels–especially if they hire the combative litigators of Skadden Arps–get the grease.

As has been previously reported, one of the investors in the consortium that won the bidding to buy 65 percent of Skype from eBay (EBAY)–which itself had bought it in 2005 from Zennström and Friis–has withdrawn its investment and involvement as part of the settlement.

That would be London-based Index Ventures, which was a smaller player in the group with–ironically–a three percent stake.

Nonetheless, Index had an outsized fight going on with Zennström and Friis.

That’s due to their ire, aimed at Index’s Mike Volpi, who was CEO of Joost, the failed online video site the pair founded.

After Zennström and Friis lost their own bid to buy back Skype, they quickly sued Index and Volpi via tech companies they control, Joltid and Joost, in Delaware.

The pair alleged that Volpi used confidential information gleaned from his time as Joost CEO to unfairly help the winning consortium acquire Skype.

The lawsuit was particularly vindictive, using embarrassing emails and making pointed accusations about Volpi plotting all kinds of nefarious schemes, like Lady Macbeth on steroids, on his way out of Joost.

I am not sure what law one can break for wanting to leave a job or how much damage one can do to an already failing business, but that did not stop Zennström and Friis from trying to pin some specious accusations on Volpi.

(I wouldn’t have been surprised if they had accused Volpi of being responsible for Balloon Boy.)

But such legal attacks obviously worked, making Index loath to stay in an economically less attractive deal with lessened influence over Skype.

And eBay and the other investors obviously wanted closure, so they could get on with the work of turbocharging Skype.

The fighting between Index and the Skype founders was just one part of the legal morass.

Zennström and Friis had already been in a battle over software licensing issues with eBay in London courts.

They also filed suit again in California against Skype and eBay for copyright violations.

For good measure, the pair added the winning buyout group, including Index, Silver Lake Partners, Andreessen Horowitz and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, in that lawsuit.

(In legalese–and in honor of the Yankees winning the World Series tonight–such massive lawsuit-making is called covering all your bases!)

Of course, Volpi and Index fired back in court filings and both sides armed themselves with powerful PR guns.

Presumably, those same mouthpieces–who have been slagging the other side for weeks–will now be at the ready with honeyed tales of reconciliation tomorrow.

Call me cynical, but we’ll see how long that lasts.

“[Zennström and Friis] got what they wanted by using Volpi as a pawn and the lawsuits as a club,” said one person close to the situation. “Everyone is moving on, but not everyone is going to forget what they did to get what they wanted.”

Volpi and Index Ventures Out of Skype Deal, the Lawsuit-Happy Founder Twins In

Kara Swisher — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 02:58:06 +0000

According to sources close to the situation, Index Ventures and Michelangelo Volpi are out of the deal to buy Skype–and their lawsuit-loving nemeses, the founders of the Internet telephony service, are in.

Skype founders Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis had sued Index and partner Michelangelo Volpi via tech companies they control, Joltid and Joost.

The pair had already been in a legal battle over software licensing issues with eBay (EBAY), the company that had sold Skype to in 2005.

They then accused Index and Volpi, employing a reputation-bashing style, of using confidential information as part of a consortium bid to acquire a large chunk of Skype.

Volpi had been Joost’s CEO.

Volpi and Index fired back in court filings and both sides armed themselves with powerful PR guns.

Ironically, Index was only a small part of the group that won the deal to acquire Skype from eBay recently.

News of the serious settlement talks was reported earlier this week by GigaOm’s Om Malik.

The New York Times’s Brad Stone also added significantly to the story about the settlement today, noting the Skype founders would be getting a stake and that Index “is most likely withdrawing from the deal.”

Well, most likely now means certainly for Index, sources told me, and the London-based venture firm that bid for Skype has to bid that deal goodbye.

More details to come, but it’s sure proof that the legal system, such as it was used, works.

Skype: A $1.9 Billion Legal Nightmare

John Paczkowski — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:20:52 +0000

EBay’s plan to sell a 65 percent stake in Skype to a group of private investors is going to be a bit more difficult to pull off than expected. This afternoon, Joltid, a company owned by Skype’s founders, filed a copyright suit against eBay and the consortium of investors that just paid $1.9 billion for a majority interest in it.

The suit, over Joltid-owned peer-to-peer technology used in Skype’s software, seeks an injunction against Skype as well as damages that Joltid claims “are amassing at a rate of more than $75 million daily.”

A nasty surprise for Skype’s new owners: Silver Lake, the Silicon Valley-based private equity group; Index Ventures, the London-based venture capital firm; Internet entrepreneur Marc Andreessen’s new Andreessen Horowitz fund; and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. Though, really they should have seen this coming. After all, Skype and Joltid have been sparring since earlier this year.

From an eBay Securities and Exchange Commission filing earlier this year:

As previously disclosed, Skype has been in a dispute with the licensor of certain key technologies and had terminated a “standstill” agreement that had been entered into between the parties, permitting either to take action against the other with effect from March 2009. On March 12, 2009, Skype Technologies S.A. filed a claim in the English High Court of Justice (No. HC09C00756) against Joltid Limited, a BVI company.

In connection with the license agreement between the two companies, Skype licenses peer-to-peer communication technology from Joltid, and Joltid has claimed that Skype has breached the terms of the license agreement. Following the filing of the claim, Joltid purported to terminate the license agreement. In particular, Joltid has alleged that Skype should not possess, use or modify certain software code (the “Code”) and that, by doing so, and by disclosing the Code in certain U.S. patent cases, pursuant to orders from U.S. courts, it has breached the license agreement.

On the basis of, among other things, the parties’ mutual dealings since the execution of the licence agreement, Skype is asking the English High Court for declaratory relief, including findings that:

(i) Skype is lawfully accessing, in possession of, using and modifying the Code so that Skype is not in breach of the license agreement with Joltid and accordingly Joltid’s notice of breach and subsequent notice of termination are invalid;

(ii) Skype lawfully disclosed the Code in the U.S. patent cases so that Skype is not in breach of the license agreement with Joltid and accordingly Joltid’s notice of breach and subsequent notice of termination are invalid; and

(iii) Joltid has certain indemnity obligations in relation to the U.S. patent proceedings.

Although Skype is confident of its legal position, as with any litigation there is the possibility of an adverse result if the matter is not resolved through negotiation. In such event, Skype would be adversely affected and the continued operation of Skype’s business as currently conducted would likely not be possible.

Perhaps this is why we saw so few bidders for Skype?

The Anchor Found Near the Cut Google Cable–It's From the S.S. Ballmer, Sir, Redux

John Paczkowski — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:05:52 +0000

Who would have thought that a search company that began as a Ph.D. research project back in 1996 would someday become a behemoth of such bandwidth-consuming appetite that it would require its own high-bandwidth undersea communications cables? Earlier this year, Google revealed that it had joined a six-company consortium to build a new multi-terabit undersea cable linking the U.S. and Japan. And now it appears the company is planning at least two more. According to TeleGeography, Google (GOOG) is part of another consortium of carriers hoping to build an intra-Asian submarine cable system that would connect Japan with Guam, the Philippines island of Luzon, Hong Kong, southern Thailand and Singapore. The company is also said to have held exploratory discussions with a number of South African telecoms about jointly building another new subsea cable connecting to Africa. Why such interest in undersea optic cables? Google would likely claim the volume of data it needs to move around the world requires the kind of capacity they provide. But there’s another reason as well. Fast, reliable connectivity encourages people to use the Internet more. And that’s good for Google’s overall business. “Google wants people to pay as little as possible for access,” a source familiar with the company’s plans told ITWeb. “In fact, they don’t really care if it is totally free, because it is good for them in the long run.”

The Anchor Found Near the Cut Google Cable–It's From the S.S. Ballmer, Sir, Redux

John Paczkowski — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:05:52 +0000