At a special meeting Thursday, a 62 percent majority of Sun’s common stock owners–not including CEO Jonathan Schwartz and board chairman and co-founder Scott McNealy, who, oddly, did not attend–approved the deal, which calls for Oracle (ORCL) to acquire Sun (JAVA) for $9.50 per share in cash, a total of $7.4 billion.

The vote was quick and painless, I’m told. It began at 10:02 am PDT and closed at 10:05 am. The end of Sun’s 27-year history was decided in under five minutes.

Of course, the merger still faces antitrust scrutiny, but Oracle insists it will be completed by the end of the summer. Oracle is probably right. And with ownership of Sun’s Java programming language and the Solaris operating system, Oracle will be a systems and software powerhouse capable of taking Microsoft (MSFT), Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) and IBM (IBM) to the mat.

[Image credit: Ars Technica]

Welcome back to Weekend Update, where we showcase some of the highlights from this site over the past week.

In the umpteenth round of the old media versus new media match, the Associated Press in its annual meeting this week played into the stereotype of the grizzled no-nonsense editor who shakes his fist at the new interweb thing (or was it intertube?) and its feisty friend Google News, who are running amok on his lawn. In addition to trying to “protect news content from misappropriation,” AP board chairman and MediaNews group CEO Dean Singleton emphasized that print was the “meat,” while online was merely the “salt and pepper.” Unimpressed, BoomTown thought Singleton was singling out the steak while missing the sizzle.

In response, Google (GOOG), or He Who Was Not Named, posted a polite, if rather ambiguous, statement on its public policy blog, which was just begging for translation. Also doing some interpreting of his own, AP executive Jim Kennedy spoke with MediaMemo on just what all the fire and brimstone was about. In quieter newspaper-related news, The Wall Street Journal continues on its quest to spread pay content online, possibly through niche content, according to WSJ.com Executive Editor Alan Murray. Also experimenting online is the recently opened news Web site, True/Slant, a heady combination of journalism, social networking and advertising.

Another news item that’s gotten people talking is the fallout from the collapsed IBM-Sun merger, aka Sun pulls a Jerry Yang. (Oh Jerry, the Internet kids because it loves… loves to kid! Pwn-age.) Following the news of the collapse, Sun (JAVA) shares dropped more than 27 percent, leading analysts and Digital Daily to predict difficult times ahead for the company, here and later here as the stock continued its fall over the week. Besides quashing its own stock price, Sun also quashed rumors that chairman and co-founder Scott McNealy would replace CEO Jonathan Schwartz.

Other nonthematic highlights this week:

BoomTown got the exclusive on the anticipated talks between Yahoo’s (YHOO) Carol Bartz and Microsoft’s (MSFT) Steve Ballmer in which the two CEOs discussed the possibility of a search and advertising partnership. Speaking of exclusivity, Google and Microsoft like totally want to be Twitter’s new bff, or maybe go steady if Twitter’s interested.

Digital Daily ruminated on speculations of Time Warner (TWX) doing an AOL spinoff, especially after its hire of former Google exec Tim Armstrong and its attempts to amend debt agreements as per an SEC filing. Also in the rumor mill: The iPhone 3.0 may support onboard video editing. Less of a rumor and more of a slap in the face, to Apple (AAPL) at least: Elan Microelectronics has taken off the gloves (and taken up the lawsuit) because it believes that Apple’s products infringe on its touchscreen patents.

MediaMemo goes over the facts about Vevo, the new online music video hub that’s a partnership between Google’s YouTube and Vivendi’s Universal Music Group, with interesting ramifications for both. Meanwhile, iTunes has put in place its new tiered-pricing system, in which songs will now cost 69 cents, 99 cents, or $1.29. But in a question that shocked no one: Where are the all the lowest-tier songs? Don’t worry your pretty little heads, said Big Music, they’re on their way.

In a new Mossblog, Walt Mossberg reports from the battlefield of the growing Smartphone Wars, in which iPhones, BlackBerries and others are engaged in mortal combat. In the Mossberg Solution, Katherine Boehret reviews BumpTop, an application that takes your flat, plain old X-Y plane of a desktop to the next dimension, that is, the third dimension.

More next week!

Whether that is a true vote of confidence remains to be seen. Certainly, Yahoo (YHOO) made similar remarks about Jerry Yang during its ill-starred negotiations with Microsoft (MSFT), and we all know how that worked out for him…

About three weeks ago, BoomTown surmised that the they’re-practically-giving-them-away prices for some prime but distressed tech companies–combined with cash hordes by stronger players–would eventually result in some acquisition activity sooner than later.

One combination I flagged most prominently, based on several sources, was that IBM would try to grab Sun Microsystems.

And today, The Wall Street Journal reported that that was indeed the case. Talks, the story said, were talking place, with a price of about $6.5 billion as a possibility, a 100 percent premium to Sun’s current market valuation.

We’re not so sure IBM will pay that much in this market, but it’s a good idea for the pair.

Such a deal has been long rumored in Silicon Valley, so I wasn’t the first to suggest such an obvious move, and these talks come as a surprise to very few, which would rescue the long-declining Sun and give heft to IBM’s Internet aims.

In fact, on Feb. 26, I wrote:

“IBM Buys Sun:

I mean someone has to buy Sun Microsystems (JAVA)–now hovering in the $5 a share range with a market valuation of just $3.62 billon–right?

But it’s not going to be Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), despite a deal announced just yesterday in which HP will distribute and provide support for Sun’s Solaris operating system on a line of HP servers.

Analysts dismissed the deal as meaningless in terms of true revenue, with one noting that it did not mean HP would buy Sun either, especially for its server business, because of redundant hardware products.

That leaves, according to many observers I spoke to: IBM (IBM), which competes with Sun in the server business too. Many think the products fit better together and IBM has a $115.3 billion valuation, so the purchase would be doable.

The server business is sucking wind, according to a report earlier this week, due to the global economy, so finding safe harbor for Sun is something Wall Street seems to be looking for.

Of course, Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz curiously did use the term ‘Live Free or Die’ in his blog post about the HP deal yesterday–although he was not referring to Sun’s independence, but noting the phrase was ‘synonymous with software independence, innovation and intellectual property freedom.’”

I guess for Sun, freedom’s just another word for something left to sell.

The other deal I mentioned as a major possibility is also commonly bandied about in Silicon Valley and is considered to be just a matter of time and price: Google (GOOG) buying hot microblogging service Twitter.

Let the let’s-make-a-deal activity begin!

About 10 days ago, BoomTown posted a piece titled, “With a King’s Ransom in Cash, Why Is There Still No Buying Spree in the Tech Space Yet?”

Noting the big cash hordes being held by a plethora of giant tech and Internet companies and their strong cash flows too, even in the midst of the economic meltdown–I wondered when the mergers and acquisitions would ever begin.

The answer is two-fold: No one wants to buy when prices could just keep going down. And no one wants to sell at all-time lows.

Another issue? While public companies have a market value, as low as they might be, noted a prominent Internet player, the bulk of tasty private ones no longer have a set price, since there have been no sales of late.

Well, that just won’t do! So, in the interest of jump-starting the economy–I mean, there are investment bankers out there running low on caviar and Dom, folks!–here are three suggestions for interesting deals.

IBM Buys Sun:

I mean someone has to buy Sun Microsystems (JAVA)–now hovering in the $5-a-share range with a market valuation of just $3.62 billon–right?

But it’s not going to be Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), despite a deal announced just yesterday in which HP will distribute and provide support for Sun’s Solaris operating system on a line of HP servers.

Analysts dismissed the deal as meaningless in terms of true revenue, with one noting that it did not mean HP would buy Sun either, especially for its server business, because of redundant hardware products.

That leaves, according to many observers I spoke to: IBM (IBM), which competes with Sun in the server business too. Many think the products fit better together, and IBM has a $115.3 billion valuation, so the purchase would be doable.

The server business is sucking wind, according to a report earlier this week, due to the global economy, so finding safe harbor for Sun is something Wall Street seems to be looking for.

Of course, Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz curiously did use the term “Live Free or Die” in his blog post about the HP deal yesterday–although he was not referring to Sun’s independence, but noting that the phrase was “synonymous with software independence, innovation and intellectual property freedom.”

Google Buys Twitter:

A lot has been written about the supposed “threat” of Twitter to all Web, media and communication companies in the known universe. (How we are all scared by a start-up whose name is so flighty is a question for another day.)

I am not so much convinced, although Twitter certainly is on a roll from a hype and growth perspective.

And I do understand why Twitter–flush with venture funding and an allegedly low burn rate–might want to bide its time to see what happens and not sell out too early.

But while the hot microblogging service declined to sell to Facebook, it might want to reconsider if Google (GOOG) or Microsoft (MSFT) or a big telecom company comes calling with, say, a $1 billion check.

Why? Simply because Twitter–while it says it is poised on the verge of announcing its grand plan to make money–is operating in an arena I have seen many other shooting stars in, traversing a very dangerous crevasse of hype and expectation.

Due to that, it has a very big red target on its back, one that a competitor in the status space–such as the spurned Facebook, whose update business is much bigger–will not ignore.

Right now, Twitter could ask for a lot, as one of the only Web 2.0 companies that everyone is uniformly excited about.

It might want to think about how such excitement can turn rather quickly. Digg–which was almost bought by Google–might give them some advice on how quickly the winds change, for example, as can many too many others.

Microsoft Buys Anyone:

With its $20.7 billion in cash and still casting about for a really bold Internet strategy–sources tell me that newly installed digital head Qi Lu just wrapped up a meeting-rich look-see at the path ahead, including a day-long session on Super Bowl Sunday–Microsoft really should stop futzing around with the PowerPoints and jump right in.

It already has an investment in Facebook. While the social-networking phenom might not be for sale, one wonders if a $10 billion offer and a promise of autonomy might not be well-considered at Facebook’s Palo Alto HQ.

Or what about the social-networking/communication assets of AOL and its low-margin advertising business, with owner Time Warner (TWX) keeping the media part of the unit? Rival Google actually wants to keep that AOL search business, so sticking it to that company would be an added bonus.

As to the continual flirting with Yahoo (YHOO), it is getting to be as annoying as Chuck Bass and Blair Waldorf’s persistently unconsummated roundelay on “Gossip Girl.”

But, of course, once again this week, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said he was interested (sort of, but not), while Yahoo’s CFO Blake Jorgensen said Yahoo was too (sort of, but not).

Said Ballmer at a strategy gathering: “They have share. We don’t have share. They have a huge team. We’ve got a much smaller team….I’m hoping that’s a reasonable conversation to have with new management at Yahoo.”

Said Jorgensen at an investor’s conference: “We’re not opposed to doing a deal…[but] it’s extremely difficult to draw a line down the middle of the organization and split it into two pieces.”

Aaaaaagghhhh!

Dear Steve: Yahoo is the only way Microsoft is ever going to gain the share it so covets, and it looks like new CEO Carol Bartz is at least showing that Yahoo does not have to be roadkill.

Dear Carol: Get while the getting is good because 20 percent is still pretty weak, compared to Google’s 70 percent, and competition is only going to get pricier.

And even though Ballmer could not resist and made a jibe at former CEO Jerry Yang–with whom he famously tangled in the botched acquisition attempts–noting “I don’t want to be known as the Jerry Yang of this market,” everyone knows these two crazy kids belong together.

So kiss, please, declare your undying affection and intent to stick it to Google, and pronto, so we can all move onto the next episode.

Read the rest of this post

Since BoomTown did an obsessive countdown after Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang last year unwisely promised a 100-day, top-to-bottom look at the company, with “no sacred cows” spared (as it turned out, they all were), I decided that–after the month-mark had passed since Microsoft (MSFT) made its unsolicited bid for Yahoo (YHOO)–it was time for a count-up!

Thus, Day 32 (we’re counting from Friday, Feb. 1, when the offer was made public)!

And, frankly, with the added Leap Day this year to add to Yahoo’s agony, this battle is getting about as exciting as Yang’s 100-day slog–with nothing really page-turning on the horizon since Yahoo’s board kicked Microsoft’s $31-per-share offer to the curb several weeks ago.

Now, of course, Microsoft is returning the favor by loudly prepping a proxy fight and trotting out Silicon Valley companies like TellMe to report that a Microsoft takeover is just hunky-dory.

“We are pretty much doing everything we were doing before–just a lot more of it,” said TellMe head Mike McCue to the Associated Press, with the cheeriness of someone with acute Stockholm syndrome and $800 million in Microsoft money.

And if happy, shiny, Windows-cash-gorged tech people don’t impress, according to several sources close to Microsoft, perhaps a little fear factor will work better.

Said these sources, there will be “three to four big-name CEOs” on its list of new board members that Microsoft must nominate in the next two weeks for its slate of directors to replace Yahoo’s current board.

BoomTown recently reported that the software giant was sniffing around for prospects in Silicon Valley.

But, sorry to say, I still cannot figure out what CEOs these are, despite a lot of effort to find out.

So, I started trying to figure it out myself, focusing on tech and Web execs, who are the obvious choices.

Nonetheless, after going over a long list of possible execs, none of the ones I considered seems likely to turn on Yahoo.

Intel? No, CEO Paul Otellini is on the board of Google.

eBay? No, that’s too big a move for the new CEO John Donahoe.

Sun? No, after Scott McNealy’s funny diatribes against Microsoft for so long, CEO Jonathan Schwartz simply cannot.

Dell? No, CEO and Founder Michael Dell has his hands full.

Amazon? CEO and Founder Jeff Bezos is sassy and lives up near Microsoft, but it would be a real slap at another Web icon like Yang.

WPP Group’s Sir Martin Sorrell? Well, to include an ad biggie would be a good move and Sorrell likes to make pointed remarks about Google, but not that sharp.

Frankly, other than non-tech companies, of which there are probably many choices who owe Microsoft in some way, I am officially out of guesses.

Well, of course, except for one Web 2.0 CEO, who has a big name and is in great–and I mean, great–debt to Microsoft.

In fact, $240 million worth of IOUs. In other words, Facebook CEO and Founder Mark Zuckerberg.

It would be ironic (Yahoo tried to buy Facebook a little more than a year ago), it would be poetic (only in Silicon Valley does the young eat its old) and it would be really fun to watch the fireworks (Facebook is no friend of Google’s).

Most of all, Zuckerberg on the board of Microsoft’s Yahoo would be Steve Ballmer’s ultimate SuperPoke at Yahoo.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Like many large technology companies, Sun has been using its patent portfolio as a profit center. About 18 months ago, Sun’s lawyers contacted NetApp with a list of patents they say we infringe, and requested that we pay them lots of money. We responded in two ways. First, we closely examined their list of patents. Second, we identified the patents in our portfolio that we believe Sun infringes.

“With respect to Sun’s patent claims, our lawsuit explains that we do not infringe, and–in fact–that they are not even valid. As a result, we don’t think we should be paying Sun millions of dollars.

“On the flip side, our suit points out that Sun’s ZFS appears to infringe several of NetApp’s WAFL patents. It looks like ZFS was a conscious reimplementation of our WAFL file system, with little regard to intellectual property rights.”

Obviously, Sun disputes NetApp’s claims. It says NetApp approached it looking to acquire the patents at issue in the case, but later decided to try to have them invalidated instead. In a post to his own blog, Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz described NetApp’s lawsuit as an attack on the open-source community.
“First, Sun did not approach NetApps about licensing any of Sun’s patents and never filed complaints against NetApps or demanded anything,” Schwartz wrote. “NetApps first approached StorageTek behind the cover of a third-party intermediary (yes, it sounds weird, doesn’t it?) seeking to purchase STK patents. After Sun acquired STK, we were not willing to sell the patents. We’ve always been willing to license them. But instead of engaging in licensing discussions, NetApp decided to file a suit to invalidate them. To be clear, we never filed a complaint or threatened to do so, nor did anyone, to the best of my knowledge, in the ZFS community.”

Like many large technology companies, Sun has been using its patent portfolio as a profit center. About 18 months ago, Sun’s lawyers contacted NetApp with a list of patents they say we infringe, and requested that we pay them lots of money. We responded in two ways. First, we closely examined their list of patents. Second, we identified the patents in our portfolio that we believe Sun infringes.

“With respect to Sun’s patent claims, our lawsuit explains that we do not infringe, and–in fact–that they are not even valid. As a result, we don’t think we should be paying Sun millions of dollars.

“On the flip side, our suit points out that Sun’s ZFS appears to infringe several of NetApp’s WAFL patents. It looks like ZFS was a conscious reimplementation of our WAFL file system, with little regard to intellectual property rights.”

Obviously, Sun disputes NetApp’s claims. It says NetApp approached it looking to acquire the patents at issue in the case, but later decided to try to have them invalidated instead. In a post to his own blog, Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz described NetApp’s lawsuit as an attack on the open-source community.
“First, Sun did not approach NetApps about licensing any of Sun’s patents and never filed complaints against NetApps or demanded anything,” Schwartz wrote. “NetApps first approached StorageTek behind the cover of a third-party intermediary (yes, it sounds weird, doesn’t it?) seeking to purchase STK patents. After Sun acquired STK, we were not willing to sell the patents. We’ve always been willing to license them. But instead of engaging in licensing discussions, NetApp decided to file a suit to invalidate them. To be clear, we never filed a complaint or threatened to do so, nor did anyone, to the best of my knowledge, in the ZFS community.”

Value is returning to the desktop applications, and not simply through Windows Vista, but in the form of applications that are network service platforms. From the obvious, to music-sharing clients and development tools, there’s a resurgence of interest in resident software that executes on your desktop, yet connects to network services. Without a browser. Like Skype. Or Qnext. Or Google Earth. And Java? OpenOffice and StarOffice? If I were a betting man, I’d bet the world was about to change.”

–Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz, Oct. 1, 2005

It’s been nearly two years since Sun and Google announced their “historic” partnership–“The Great Anticlimax of 2005,” as we like to refer to it around here–a union that some believed would push the Information Age off the desktop and onto the Internet. As it happened, the only thing the partnership pushed off the desktop and onto the Internet was a yawner of a press release announcing that the Google Toolbar would henceforth be available as a Java Runtime Environment download option.

But it was a first step. And now we’re finally seeing the second, which is quite a bit more substantial. Google has added Sun’s StarOffice productivity suite to Google Pack, its collection of free software applications. Now typically, the addition of a new app to Google Pack wouldn’t be particularly noteworthy. But StarOffice is a direct competitor to Microsoft Office; it’s a full suite of desktop-based office apps (and tools for Microsoft Office migration) that normally retails for $70.

And Google is reportedly paying Sun to offer it for free.

And it’s doing so at a time when many PC users are mulling an upgrade to Microsoft Office 2007. Which would seem to suggest that it does indeed have designs on Microsoft’s hugely profitable Office business, despite its “We are not in this to get Microsoft” protestations.