The case was dismissed without prejudice at the request of Fatdoor founder Raj Abhyanker, who said that Benchmark and its EIRs — which in 2007 included Nextdoor CEO Nirav Tolia, as well as current Facebook CTO Bret Taylor, who was also named in the complaint — had stolen his pitch for a local social network with neighborhood-level privacy controls.

Nextdoor VP communications Dabney Lawless said her company felt vindicated that the lawsuit was dropped without a paid settlement. “We’ve always said the lawsuit is completely without merit,” she said.

Abhyanker, though, said his fight was not over. He is currently contesting the Nextdoor trademark, and he is hopeful that he can persuade Google to take up the fight, since it owns the Fatdoor intellectual property through its purchase of a later version of the company called The Dealmap.

Further, it came out over the course of my reporting today that Abhyanker also sued Facebook in January over Fatdoor trade secrets; that case has already been dismissed, as well.

That complaint, filed Jan. 20 and embedded below, said Taylor stole various ideas from Fatdoor for broad concepts related to Facebook’s news feed, “Like” button and other products.

Abhyanker told me that the lawsuit and quick dismissal was all part of his litigation strategy to enlist Google to pursue the Fatdoor patents.

I asked Google for comment on the matter, but I doubt it will have much to say.

Abhyanker framed the cases as a fight between a lone entrepreneur and the “incestuous old boys club” of Silicon Valley. “People are afraid to stand up. We stood up and I’m proud of that,” he said.

Making a lay judgment on this particular battle was harder than usual because of the people involved. Tolia and Benchmark had somewhat infamously been sued, and settled with shareholders in a previous start-up, Epinions, after the shareholders were mostly left out of an acquisition deal. Meanwhile, Abhyanker is an intellectual property lawyer, and pursuing patents and trademarks is literally his business.

Raj Abhyanker Facebook lawsuit

You might be thinking: A thermostat’s a thermostat … right?

In Honeywell’s view, it’s not so simple. In the complaint, filed in a U.S. district court in Minnesota, the maker of aerospace systems, consumer products and technology solutions identified seven patents it believes Nest Labs infringes on.

Honeywell is also seeking damages from Best Buy, which features and sells Nest’s product in home-energy departments around the U.S. (Best Buy also sells Honeywell programmable thermostats.)

Nest Labs was recently launched by Matt Rogers and Tony Fadell, a former Apple executive who worked on the iPod. Last fall, Nest Labs began selling the Nest Learning Thermostat, a buzzed-about, easily programmable “smart” thermostat that uses the same wheel interface as the original iPod. The device can be controlled from a user’s smartphone, tablet or Web browser, and Fadell has been quoted as saying the Nest will save users up to 30 percent off their utility bills. With Nest, the uncool thermostat suddenly became a hot item.

Nest Labs did not respond to requests for comments on the suit, except to release a statement yesterday, saying they had not yet reviewed the actual filing, and that the company will provide comment once they’ve had the opportunity to review it.

Speaking for Honeywell, Bruce Eric Anderson, the company’s director of external communications, expounded on Honeywell’s statement from yesterday, saying that intellectual property is a “part of what Honeywell is as a company. We have 20,000 engineers that come here every day and it’s about protecting those individuals. This suit is not unique,” Anderson added.

Rather than go through the filing patent by patent, here are a few of the key sticking points of the suit:

First, Honeywell points out that it commercialized the first adjustable thermostat that allowed users to sleep through the night without having to manually turn their furnaces on and off; and that it is a global leader of innovative thermostats, and created the iconic “round” thermostat that’s now featured in the Smithsonian museum collection.

Honeywell goes on to mention more recent innovations, including its Prestige 2.0 Comfort Systems and RedLINK Wireless Comfort Sytems. More on the Prestige in a bit.

In the section titled “Acts Giving Rise to the Action,” the Honeywell filing points to various features of the Nest thermostat that have been promoted by Nest Labs and Best Buy as “innovative,” including the ability to connect the device to the Internet, store private data and control the Nest remotely through a Wi-Fi connection. Honeywell also takes issue with Fadell and Rogers having said that there hasn’t been any real innovation in decades in the thermostat space, though the sources of this quote and others are unclear.

Honeywell alleges that Nest Labs does not appear to have originated the design or functionality of the Nest thermostat — and says the key functional features at the core of the device are the results of years of research and development that culminated in patents owned by Honeywell.

For example, Honeywell’s complaint says, the fact that the Nest thermometer came with a patented “question system” — “What are the lowest and highest temperatures you’d like when you are away?” — is not new. Honeywell’s Prestige thermostat, introduced in late 2008, also incorporates an “interview-based interface.”

Honeywell also says that controlling a thermostat remotely through the Internet is not a Nest Labs innovation.

Interestingly, General Electric also offers consumers — as part of a home-energy management system — the ability to remotely control a GE “smart” thermostat from a smartphone or home computer. “Connect seamlessly to your programmable thermostat to remotely adjust your home climate,” says GE’s Web page for this feature.

When I asked Anderson whether Honeywell had ever examined GE’s system, he simply said, “I don’t know. I’m not familiar with that product.”

In the filing, Honeywell also references this AllThingsD video from last November as showing evidence that Nest Labs was examining “numerous” Honeywell thermostats in its research, indicating that Nest — which it calls a “well-funded, sophisticated company” — was well aware of Honeywell’s contributions to the thermostat industry.

So, Honeywell says, it has suffered and will suffer monetary damages and irreparable harm as a result of Nest Labs’s infringements, as well as from Best Buy’s infringements by using, offering to sell and/or selling the Nest device.

Since we don’t have a more detailed response from Nest Labs yet, it’s hard to know how this will play out. It’s also unclear whether Honeywell contacted Nest Labs prior to filing the formal suit.

Ed Weisz, a senior intellectual property lawyer at the firm of Cozen O’Connor (which is not involved in the Honeywell suit), says that most cases like this one result in a settlement. However, if it is determined that there has been a patent infringement, Weisz says, Honeywell could seek an injunction — which the courts may be more likely to grant, because there’s actually a product already out on the market.

Weisz also said that, while Best Buy is enjoined in the suit, he doesn’t think the retailer will be on the hook for additional damages, as their sale of goods — even ones that might infringe on IP — will be covered by the Uniform Commercial Code.

“It’s way too premature to have any read on the merits of this,” Weisz said.

What we do know is that in Silicon Valley — and in Honeywell’s case, outside of the Valley, too — tech-patent lawsuits are hardly uncommon, especially in the smartphone and tablet market.

We’ll keep you posted as this story evolves.

A person familiar with the matter said Google removed content from its search service, YouTube video site and Blogger after receiving an order to do so from Judge Mukesh Kumar of a New Delhi district court.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

But this one has a twist or two. The media company is Grooveshark, an increasingly popular music service that’s also being sued by all of the major music labels.

And Grooveshark doesn’t want information about alleged lawbreakers. Instead, it wants details about an anonymous user who posted comments on Digital Music News, an industry news site.

Paul Resnikoff, the site’s owner, publisher and primary writer, writes about the subpoenas (and posts them in their entirety) here. And Ben Sisario of the New York Times has a good summary of the story. So I’ll try to do my version very quickly:

• Universal Music Group, the world’s biggest label, is suing Grooveshark over copyright violations, and has cited an Oct. 2011 story that Resnikoff published, along with comments made by one more readers, in its case.
• The story concerned claims by musician Robert Fripp and his team, who argued that though they didn’t want Fripp’s music on Grooveshark, the company wouldn’t take his songs off its site.
• The comments in question came from someone who said they were a Grooveshark employee, and that they had specific instructions to upload music from the big labels to the site, without permission from the labels or artists. “And,” the commenter adds, “to confirm the fears of [Fripp], there is no way in hell you can get your stuff down.”
• Grooveshark is demanding that Resnikoff hand over “any and all correspondence or other communications” between himself and Universal Music over the story. They also want “any and all documents concerning the identity of the First Anonymous Commenter, including, without limitation, that person’s name, address, telephone number and e-mail address, and the IP Address and ISP associated with that person.”

Resnikoff says he won’t comply with the subpoenas. He tells me that even if he wanted to hand over information about his anonymous commenters, he couldn’t. He says that as a matter of policy his site routinely “flushes” any information about anonymous commenters within two days of their posts.

And Resnikoff says that even though the comments in this case contained explosive allegations about Grooveshark, he never tried to verify the commenter’s identity: “What the world sees is what we have.”

In his post, Resnikoff suggests he’ll be protected by whistleblower laws when he fights Grooveshark’s demands. But he tells me that his legal team isn’t sure what laws they’ll cite yet. “We’re just incredibly committed to protecting any informants or sources of information,” he says.

This fight has plenty of interesting gray areas. For instance: What kind of legal responsibility does a news site have for claims that its commenters make? But I’ll let media law experts weigh in on that. For me, the notion that a Web publisher that isn’t directly involved in a legal suit can be forced to cough up names and addresses of contributors makes me shiver.

That scenario also strikes me as similar to some of the worst-case scenarios that SOPA/PIPA opponents have been making in recent weeks — this is a Web site faced with big legal problems over the actions of a single user, right? So I’ll be interested to see if they jump on Grooveshark over this one.

But Grooveshark doesn’t seem to think anyone will get riled up about this. This afternoon, I received an unsolicited email from Edelman, its PR firm. The email contained a copy of the subpoena, and a statement Edelman wants attributed to Grooveshark: “Grooveshark reaffirms its confidence that it will prevail in this litigation and that this filing represents the next step in reaching that end.”

(Image courtesy of Shutterstock/photobank.ch)

The new executive would report to the board and could have broad powers to manage Kodak’s finances and operations.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

According to sources close to the situation, Yahoo co-founder Jerry Yang is just the first shoe to drop in what is shaping up to be what looks like a large exodus of board members from the Silicon Valley Internet company.

Sources said four other directors will also step down soon. As I wrote last week, in a post suggesting Yang might also go, the prime candidates to go appear to be: Chairman Roy Bostock, Arthur Kern, Vyomesh Joshi, and Gary Wilson.

As I noted in a post titled “Yahapocalypse Now?”:

While some departures seem most obvious — longtime board members Vyomesh Joshi, Arthur Kern and Gary Wilson — the really interesting part will be the possible exit of Chairman Roy Bostock.

While it now is more of a when rather than an if, many sources report, how it goes down is the key part of the move. And who will be the chairman then will be the big conundrum — either an internal candidate, such as David Kenny, or a fresh-eyed outsider.

Another question mark: Whether co-founder Jerry Yang could also move along off the board with Bostock. While Internet company founders usually stick on boards, it’s not a given, especially with all the turmoil at Yahoo, some of which is related to Yang.

And the major impetus for the board cleansing, besides the obvious need to drastically shake up what might be the most dysfunctional board in all of tech? Worries about possible lawsuits, as well as a proxy fight that could spell disaster for the already troubled Yahoo.

Sources said among the issues most worrisome is how this board conducted recent attempts to sell part of the company to private equity firms rather than sell it whole.

In addition, shareholder pressures — especially the distinct possibility of a proxy fight from Daniel Loeb of Third Point — have been mounting on the Yahoo board.

Still, it does look like Yang still motored out of the company he co-founded — an accomplishment that should be feted, despite recent misses at Yahoo — on his own, even if he had few other good options in the end.

Apple had asked the commission to block imports of Motorola phones such as the Droid and Droid X that run Google Inc.’s Android software, claiming they infringed on its patents.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Mr. Woodford, who was dismissed as CEO and president in October after exposing an accounting scandal at Olympus, said he has already filed a lawsuit against the company with a tribunal court in the U.K. and that another lawsuit in Japan may follow.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Whatever you want to call him or her — a silver bullet, the cure or, as I like to say, the last unicorn — Yahoo’s ever-seeking and never-deciding board has now renewed its focus on finding a new CEO.

Also on the docket: Working on a deal to sell back at least some of its stake in its twin Asian assets — Yahoo Japan and the Alibaba Group — back to the companies. A partial sale of stock back could placate the often tense situation among the partners.

What is clear is that the two bids from private equity firms are now in an undetermined circling pattern — due to a variety of concerns around shareholder unrest (Occupy Yahoo looms for 2012).

Therefore, the idea of bringing in said fantasy leader to perhaps finally be the one to revive the long-troubled company has returned to the forefront of action, according to numerous sources both inside and outside the company.

The concept in short, said people familiar with the situation: Hire some compelling and entrepreneurial CEO to get the company moving again from a product point of view, do a massive organizational overhaul and help settle Yahoo’s thorny Asian issues.

While a number of names have been rumored in reports — such as Google business lead Nikesh Arora, who is actually not likely to leave his top post at the search giant — sources said the board has been targeting a number of candidates, including Hulu CEO Jason Kilar.

Others on Yahoo’s wish list include Juniper CEO Kevin Johnson and online advertising entrepreneur Brian McAndrews, who sold aQuantive to Microsoft. There are several others also being considered.

Sources said Kilar has met with Yahoo board members about the offer, but his hiring would be a long shot.

It’s an interesting — if complex — gambit to bring in Kilar, who has had his own wrangles with the multi-owner structure of the premium video service over the years.

Kilar’s status at Hulu has been in question ever since it was put on the block, then removed and then — well — who knows.

Hulu’s owners — News Corp., Disney and Providence Equity Partners, along with Comcast (which is a now a passive investor) — did not like the offers it got from various bidders, including Yahoo.

While the media giants have made noises about wanting to keep a stake in distribution, their commitment to that remains unclear.

The situation has put Kilar — who already had tense relations with the service’s shareholders — in limbo until a valuation is determined next year. Without going into the complex details, Kilar has a large equity stake that could be liquid in April, related to certain rights held by Providence.

It is well known that Kilar has been concerned the team that built Hulu gets some sort of payout for their work. In fact, many years ago, Hulu was seen as a possible IPO candidate.

What’s not in question is Kilar’s talent at creating a cohesive team and a compelling product — especially with an advertising and media focus — and the need at Yahoo for a vibrant leader to encourage innovation and discourage its rapidly increasing attrition issues.

The search for a new Yahoo CEO — which is being led by director Patti Hart, and is being conducted by Heidrick & Struggles — had been mostly sidelined until recently, as the board solicited bids for a partial investment from PE firms.

Two emerged, from Silver Lake and TPG Capital, which had wanted to pay from $16.50 to $18 a share for a stake of just under 20 percent in what is called a PIPE (Private Investment in Public Equity) arrangement.

But the low price, and worries about lawsuits and even a proxy fight related to such a deal, have slowed down the momentum significantly, said sources.

Instead, Yahoo has told bidders it will get back to them in the coming weeks about the direction it will take. Thus, the focus on lining up CEO candidates and plans related to reviving Yahoo.

Some of those possible execs have put their hand up, while others — like Kilar — are being solicited. In addition, some still think that Yahoo board member David Kenny remains an internal option, especially if the board of Yahoo gets a refresh, despite his recent announcement that he has no intention of seeking the job.

In general, this shift should not come has a surprise for the hurry-up-and-wait board of Yahoo, which has struggled over the years to make good choices for the Silicon Valley Internet giant.

That drift has resulted in a downturn in its prospects, even as other companies have surged.

Those troubles were brought into sharp focus in a recent report by new Goldman Sachs Internet analyst Heath Terry, who strafed Yahoo in his “sell” recommendation.

Among the gems by an analyst whose investment bank is currently an advisor to Yahoo on its strategic options:

Yahoo simply faces too many competitive and structural headwinds to believe any kind of meaningful turnaround is possible. While there is significant asset value on the balance sheet and in the company’s large, though increasingly less engaged user base, we continue to believe, as we have since before the first Microsoft offer, that the segment of management driving the company is intent on trying to revive Yahoo as a company, regardless of the cost to shareholders.

And, noting the need for a new CEO:

We would become more positive if we felt there was a likely event in the near term that might unlock the value of the balance sheet assets at Yahoo. While we believe the aggregate value of those assets is above the value reflected in YHOO, in order to be more positive on the stock we would need some proof that management is willing and able to take the steps necessary to unlock that value either through a sale or distribution to shareholders. Meanwhile, the declining profitability of the core display advertising business is masked by a search business that continues to lose share and relies on artificial support from Microsoft. We would become more positive on the core Yahoo business if the company is able to find a new CEO capable of focusing the business on its core advertising and communications opportunities, rationalizing costs, and driving growth. This would require user growth and especially engagement improvements in both online and mobile, improving monetization of advertising inventory, and stabilizing its search business.

In other words: Wanted, one unicorn to work magic against increasingly troublesome dragons. Ability to sparkle a plus.

Speech technology company Nuance, which has been suing Vlingo, said on Tuesday that it is buying the mobile voice-software firm for an undisclosed price.

Of course, now the two firms have nothing but nice things to say about each other.

“Vlingo and Nuance have long shared a similar vision for the power and global proliferation of mobile voice and language understanding,” Vlingo CEO Dave Grannan said in a statement. “As a result of our complementary research and development efforts, our companies are stronger together than alone. Our combined resources afford us the opportunity to better compete, and offer a powerful proposition to customers, partners and developers.”

It wasn’t that long ago that Nuance was asserting that Vlingo’s vision was a little too similar. In August, a jury in one case found that Vlingo did not infringe on Nuance patents. However, Nuance noted at the time that it had other pending actions against Vlingo that it planned to continue pursuing.

Apparently, Apple’s introduction of Siri has convinced the two firms there are bigger fish to fry.

“Inspired by the introduction of services such as Apple’s Siri and our own Dragon Go!, virtually every mobile and consumer electronics company on the planet is looking for ways to integrate natural, conversational voice interactions into their mobile products, applications, and services,” Nuance mobile unit head Mike Thompson said in a statement.

Bygones.

Nothing is final — all that’s been decided is that the class action lawsuit can continue — but the judge did not seem friendly to Facebook’s advertising strategy.

A spokesman for Facebook said, “We are reviewing the decision and continue to believe that the case is without merit.”

Facebook’s business proposition is that ads are better when they are social, because we care about the products our friends endorse. The lawsuit is over a key type of social ad called a “Sponsored Story,” which is generated after a Facebook user clicks the “Like” button on a brand’s page and is shown to that user’s friends.

The plaintiffs in the case said that they clicked on “Like” buttons in order to “receive discounts on products, support social causes, or to see a humorous image.” They weren’t necessarily saying they endorsed a product or consented to be put in an ad.

In legal terms, Facebook allegedly violated their “right of publicity.”

(For background, using the “Like” button as an access gate may not have been the original intent of the feature, which was a replacement for users becoming a fan of a brand’s page. However, lots of brands now do it so they can do things like raise their “Like” count, maintain ongoing relationships with users, and spread Sponsored Stories. This is something Facebook presumably could crack down on.)

Facebook replied to the court that its users have consented to this kind of thing by agreeing to its Terms of Use. But Judge Lucy H. Koh agreed with the plaintiffs that Sponsored Stories didn’t exist when many of the users agreed to the Terms of Use, and Facebook didn’t ask them to review or renew when it added the opt-out feature.

(It’s possible that in the aftermath of the Facebook-FTC settlement, Facebook would have to be more careful about explaining and rolling out this kind of feature in the future.)

The plaintiffs want to be paid for their endorsements, citing public statements by Facebook execs about how effective the social ads are. Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg has said Sponsored Stories are twice as likely to be remembered as an ordinary ad, and three times as likely to inspire a user to buy something.

In her ruling, Koh denied 10 different ways Facebook tried to get the case dismissed. The only place Koh agreed with Facebook is that the plaintiffs can’t claim “unjust enrichment” as a cause of action — but that’s basically a technicality, because recent California case law says that’s no longer something you can claim.

FacebookFraley

Please see the disclosure about Facebook in my ethics statement.

This is par for the course in mobile land, of course. And patents are the primary motivator in Google’s pending acquisition of Motorola Mobility; supposedly, the 25,000 patents Google would pick up in the deal will help protect it in legal fights just like these. Assuming antitrust regulators sign off on the deal, that is.

Back to the present tense: As Florian Mueller notes, the suit means BT joins the likes of Apple, Oracle, Microsoft and eBay, all of whom accuse Android of violating patent law. You can read the complete filing here.

The music companies, Sony Corp.’s Sony Music Entertainment and Access Industries Inc.’s Warner Music Group, joined in an amended complaint to a suit filed last month by Vivendi SA’s Universal Music Group in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

The order, which was handed down by a federal district court judge in New York on Monday, resolves a lawsuit filed in 2008. The judge found the defendants liable as participants in a conspiracy under New York common law.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

“Let’s go. Yes, let’s go.” [They do not move.]

– Samuel Beckett, “Waiting for Godot”

In Internet terms, the removal of Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz happened a dog’s age ago.

In fact, it was September 6.

Since then, it has felt like a slow slog, especially contrasting the situation with that of another troubled Silicon Valley giant, Hewlett-Packard, which fired its CEO Léo Apotheker and appointed a new one, Meg Whitman on September 22.

Since then, in comparison, the former eBay CEO has been like the Energizer Bunny, making a series of major and often difficult decisions, including: Holding onto its PC unit; reaffirming its controversial deal to buy Autonomy; promising a decision on the fate of its webOS unit within the next two weeks; appointing new execs; and even buying a company.

To be fair, Yahoo did acquire advertising start-up Interclick.

Otherwise, still no sale or investment deal. No new CEO. No Asia resolution. And, perhaps most importantly, no clearly articulated strategy going forward.

It’s not that Yahoo’s leadership isn’t working at it.

Some fervently insist to me that there is a “plan,” as if there is some clever game of Internet Stratego going on that I cannot possibly grok.

Mebbe — but of this I have no doubt: The Yahoo board has indeed been huffing and puffing away, weighing and measuring, considering and debating.

A lot.

Maybe I’m just too impatient. I am (ask my kids).

Or maybe Yahoo’s beleaguered employees are, one of whom just wrote me plaintively, “unreal how they can drag this out,” in what has become a common refrain up and down the ranks.

Or maybe it’s the Asian partners, Alibaba Group and SoftBank, who are antsy and have considered a variety of nuclear options in order to get back stakes Yahoo holds in them. Said one: “The strategy seems to be to frustrate and exhaust us into submission.”

Or, finally, maybe it’s the newly frustrated recent bidders for a partial stake in Yahoo, Silver Lake and TPG Capital. Declared one to me after I warned that Yahoo might, in fact, drag the proceedings out longer than you might expect: “I thought you were kidding.”

Nope, welcome to the Yahoo waiting game, PE guys!

So, to help us all get through it, here’s a quick update primer on what’s what on the various fronts:

Who’s in Charge Here?

Technically, it is the Yahoo board, which is aided by interim CEO Tim Morse.

First, a word about Morse: By all accounts, he is doing a very good job as temporary head honcho — calming the troubled company, making swift decisions about daily operating issues and being a generally nice dude to deal with.

“He’s Yahoo’s no-drama Obama, in comparison to what was happening before,” said one exec, in reference to the more volatile regime under Bartz.

Still, despite his very pleasant all-hands meetings, such as one earlier this week, Morse had previously been Yahoo’s CFO and not an Internet-savvy visionary to give the company inspiration. No insult intended, but he’s the accountant guy.

To be fair, he is not meant to be the visionary, but many at the company are yearning for exactly that.

A role that is now being taken up again by co-founder, former CEO and director Jerry Yang, who dozens of employees tell me is unusually involved in operational details these days for a board member.

I get reports of sightings of him all the livelong day: Jerry in demand-side advertising confab! Jerry chitchatting with entrepreneurs from a possible start-up acquisition! Jerry weighing in on a variety of products. Look, over in the cubicle, it’s Jerry!

This is seen by Yahoo employees as a good thing and also a bad thing, since it’s hard to be running your little divisional show at Yahoo with the dude who invented it all looking over your shoulder, even if he means well. People naturally defer to Yang, the 800-pound Web icon in the room.

But, given the overwhelming state of stasis at Yahoo now — “No one can do anything until we find out how the story ends,” said one staffer — and employees eying the exits, no power at Yahoo really matters but the board.

You know, the board that has gotten the company to this moment of crisis and profound ennui, which is its own particularly ironic irony.

To better understand the power dynamics on the board, above is a little chart for you to peruse to give you an idea of which independent board member is running what key committee.

The only truly important one is the Transactions and Strategic Planning committee, which is headed by Intuit President and CEO Brad Smith and includes former Akamai President (and former Yahoo CEO candidate) David Kenny, top HP exec Vyomesh Joshi and other guy Gary Wilson.

And, in completely visible shadow form, Yang. Multiple sources close to the situation said he has been a key force in the strategery around a possible sale or investment.

This has caused not more than a little tension among board members, but everyone seems to like the much described nicest-man-in-the-room, Smith, and hopes his cool head will prevail.

Another important part of the board is the Nominating and Corporate Governance committee run by Patti Hart, who is energetically and simultaneously — if pointlessly — in search of a capable new Yahoo CEO.

Or, as I like to call this mythical person: The Unicorn.

The Deal

As I and many others have previously reported, there are bids on the table for partial investments in Yahoo by two very powerful private equity firms, Silver Lake and TPG Capital.

It’s a PE rumble, with a side of Microsoft financial backing! (I think Silver Lake’s Egon Durban makes a very nice Riff, while Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer is the perfect Officer Krupke.)

My fervent wishes for some figurative and dance-accompanied knife-play aside, the bids are essentially the same in general and different in particular. Silver Lake is offering about $16.50 a share, while TPG is dangling a tiny bit more. Silver Lake has power entrepreneur and VC Marc Andreessen on its side, while TPG is trying to get Silicon Valley fave investor and start-up whisperer Reid Hoffman of Greylock Partners and LinkedIn on its team. Both have ideas on CEOs, strategy and what to do about the Asian assets.

This type of deal could happen suddenly and you’ll hear about it quick, since the losing side will immediately trash it to the media.

As you might expect, each director has their favorite PE firm, with some not liking Andreessen, some thinking the TPG bid is a little light, some for a whole-company deal and some wanting Yahoo to hire its own CEO and run the place itself.

Of course, the last one shows a disturbing level of denial and should be a nonstarter, given the board’s abysmal record on CEO choice and its riding of Yahoo to this sad point in its storied history.

Here’s what to expect on the PE front: A lot of wrangling behind the scenes with frequent leaks to the media about what each side wants and will not yield on.

CEO choice or no CEO choice, that is the question!

Also a big factor are Yahoo’s major shareholders, few of whom like the partial investment deal, which is known as a PIPE (Private Investment in Public Equity), because of the insiderness of it all and because they prefer a whole-company sale at a higher price.

There is also pressure from activist shareholders like Daniel Loeb of Third Point, who has attacked Yang and others on the board and is ready to pounce with a proxy fight if Yahoo tries to override shareholders too egregiously. And, of course, the inevitable lawsuits over any arrangement that seems to block a whole-company bid.

That said, such a mega-deal seems unlikely, since it is too pricey and despite a lot of noise that Yahoo’s Asian partners were ready to strike with a takeover in order to get back Yahoo’s big stakes in their companies.

That’s kind of like buying a store to get back the cool pair of shoes you sold, but bankers love to scheme up this stuff. While it certainly could happen, it would be a bear of a deal.

Perhaps more like Yogi Bear, hopelessly angling for a tasty pic-a-nik basket — but grrrr anyway.

But perhaps the biggest factor in all of this mishegas is time. There is none on a lot of levels, most especially the increasing level of brain drain and drift at Yahoo. After the New Year dawns, this is going to spin right out of control and amount to the biggest internal challenge Yahoo faces.

An Asian Solution

As I and others have reported, Yahoo is entertaining yet another proposal to sell all or part of its Asian assets back to the companies, which make up a bulk of its market valuation.

The relationship between Yahoo and its Asian partners has long been fraught, and today the difficulty of reaching an agreement remains a vexing issue. That’s because it is hard and complex and because no one wants to do what the other side wants.

I am no tax attorney, but it seems as if Yahoo will ultimately come to some deal with China’s Alibaba and Japan’s SoftBank, which could include big investors like Russia’s DST Global.

And, as I reported last week, the Asian partners want to strike a deal with the current board rather than lose leverage with a much cannier new owner.

It’s a tough decision in all aspects to strike, but would remove the focus on the fact that Yahoo’s most valuable asset is something it is not running and simply holds due to a good stock trade in years past.

Years past should be the operative thought here, since the Asian assets have nothing to do with what Yahoo needs to do with its core U.S. and global brand.

You know, the thing that allowed them to buy those lucrative Asian assets in the first place?

Strategery

And that’s the crux of all this, isn’t it? Yahoo needs a new strategy and fast.

Or it needs to clarify and hone its current strategies around advertising and media and define itself once and for all. While it often touts itself as a premier digital media company, it’s still not clear exactly what Yahoo is saying by that.

In fact, incredibly, sources told me that the board was still wrangling over the tired issue of what Yahoo is at its most recent meeting — essentially, is it a products company or a media company?

If I had to listen to that who-am-I-anyway debate again, I think I would scream, given how many important Web trends that Yahoo has whiffed in recent years, many of which were right in its own wheelhouse.

How much damage this has caused to Yahoo’s core business is a critical one to determine, with many feeling the situation is too far gone to revive it and others confident that this is simply an issue of poor execution.

I am in the middle on this one, but all the indicators of Yahoo’s business have long been heading in the wrong direction, and results in the next quarter are expected to underline this even more.

Thus, the board’s navel-gazing at this point is untoward, considering that it is presiding over the possibility of a sale that should not have had to happen in the first place. While it is not quite a fire sale, it’s no cause for celebration at all the attention, either.

In fact, it’s also pointless, since — if this all resolves as it should — the current Yahoo board will not be the one determining the company’s future any longer. Remember that: This group should and will be gone for the most part.

Yahoo shareholders and employees can hope, at least.

Then, it will be up to the next group of leaders to make the very hard choices — including what are likely to be massive layoffs and radical surgery on its offerings — for what’s to come next.

In the end, that is all that will matter. Until then, as usual, you’ll have to sit tight.

What took so long?

Actually, it did not take any time at all for someone to start legal proceedings against the current effort by Yahoo to sell itself.

In this case, no surprise, it is aimed directly at the how of doing it.

In an unusual injunction request, M&C Partners is seeking to enjoin the Silicon Valley Internet giant from using its stringent “no cross talk” rule for its potential buyers to limit possible bidding syndicates.

“The No Cross Talk Provision constitutes an unreasonable anti-takeover device, designed to entrench and favor [Yahoo co-founder, director and major shareholder Jerry] Yang and the current Board,” reads the legal filing, in part.

In addition, M&C does not like what it calls a “Minority Stake Promise,” which it alleges Yahoo is “requiring those who sign the Confidentiality Agreement to use any information they receive to confine themselves to a bid for only a minority stake.”

That refers to the fantastically named PIPE deals — or Private Investment in Public Equity — that PE firms like Silver Lake and TPG Capital have just offered. These are bids to buy 19.9 percent of Yahoo, which will essentially give them a lot of power.

Both allegations are, well, exactly what Yahoo is doing, even if it’s not for the filing’s stated nefarious reason. Thus, M&C doesn’t think that’s okay, presumably because it wants investors to be able to make a deal without Yahoo’s bossy rules.

To be clear, Yahoo is named in lawsuits all the time for a wide variety of things, such as a case in which one group is alleging it botched a deal with the Alibaba Group over its Alipay controversy to another alleging the price it paid for in its recent $270 million acquisition of Interclick was too low.

And so it is here, one of many to come, I suspect. In this one, there’s also a class-action request and various and sundry bashing of Yang, which you can read below:

yhoo

The move by Julius Genachowski, the FCC’s chairman, would be a setback for the two companies that are already facing opposition from the Justice Department, which filed a lawsuit to stop the deal. The FCC’s move would be another obstacle for the two companies to overcome. The agency’s hearing would happen the conclusion of the antitrust trial, according to this person.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

On Wednesday a New York judge gave Ceglia 30 days to respond under oath about what happened to the evidence after Facebook complained Ceglia was hiding out in Ireland.

Ceglia doesn’t have to appear in court but he does have to deliver a signed declaration about his “in-person, good-faith efforts” to find the evidence, said a court order issued Thursday.

Earlier this week, Ceglia’s lawyers asked the court to sanction Zuckerberg for deleting relevant emails. Facebook lawyers previously called Ceglia’s claims fraudulent and are now describing them as “delusional” and “desperate.”

The court order seemed to ignore the deleted email question.

A section of Ceglia's alleged contract with Zuckerberg marked for ink analysis

Please see the disclosure about Facebook in my ethics statement.