The top four most powerful people are politicians, including Barack Obama in the top spot. At No. 5 is Bill Gates, who ranks high for his philanthropic role as co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Some of the other tech leaders and their rankings:

5. Bill Gates, co-chair, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

9. Mark Zuckerberg, founder, Facebook.

30. Sergey Brin and Larry Page, co-founders, Google.

40. Jeff Bezos, CEO, Amazon.

42. Robin Li, CEO, Baidu.

44. Li Ka-shing, chairman, Hutchinson Wampoa.

58. Tim Cook, CEO, Apple.

60. Masayoshi Son, CEO, Softbank.

If wishes were horses, as the old proverb goes, all beggars would ride.

Or, in the case of the incessant corporate drama around Yahoo: If wishes were deals, all bankers would get big fat fees.

Even BoomTown has been harboring a big wish that there were some new scenario–instead of the same retreads that have been bandied about for more than a month–that was at least possible.

But because making up scenarios about the fate of Yahoo is all fun and games, it goes on and on and on.

Today’s latest intrigue is from Reuters, which reports that the Alibaba Group’s Jack Ma is considering entreaties by moneybags private equity folks to give him the many billions of dollars needed to buy back Yahoo’s 40 percent stake in the Chinese Internet giant and perhaps even participate in a takeover of Yahoo itself.

As has been reported here and in many places many times already, private equity and other investor interest has centered for a while on working with Ma to unlock critical financial value for anyone interested in doing any kind of buyout of Yahoo.

And, as it turns out, Ma has long been explicit about wanting to rid himself of Yahoo and to take back control of Alibaba completely.

There’s no doubt the government of China would also look kindly on that result too, many sources say, given the huge size of the vexing foreign ownership of one of the country’s brightest Internet stars.

But, as most also know, wishing–and even offering a giant pile of money–doesn’t make it so, unless Ma can convince Yahoo to sell to him.

And, of course, he also does not have to do anything either, since Yahoo management has little say over his actions at Alibaba, in spite of the large stake Yahoo holds.

As you can see, you can spin these ideas all day long, which is what bankers apparently get paid so much for.

Luckily, I will do it for free.

You could, for example, add Microsoft into the Yahoo mix once again. Would it engage, in order to get the search business in China from Alibaba? Or to finally unload its pricey MSN unit?

And what of News Corp., with its extensive ties in Asia and interest in trading its weak digital properties, such as Myspace, for something better? Wasn’t CEO Rupert Murdoch sniffing around before?

There is also a renewed scenario for Demand Media to become involved.

Of course, let’s not leave out the old faithful plots about how tiny AOL, with its high-Q-quotient CEO Tim Armstrong, could still be a contender.

Just for fun, I will add another interesting idea I recently heard: Comcast. Could the cable and now media giant swoop in at some point and pick up a lot of digital assets it might need going forward?

Don’t forget Disney either–the Hollywood entertainment giant, which has a key interest in moving into the digital space even more boldly.

On consolation: Google is probably out, having been burned before, because of all the antitrust issue inherent in any hookup with Yahoo.

Of course, it will not be a party until Twitter gets here, with its date Zynga.

Finally: Where, oh, where is the holy union of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Apple CEO Steve Jobs when you need them to knock this corporate drama into the stratosphere?

Until it is all sorted out for real, here is a reprint of some of the many similar scenarios I cooked up way back in late September–most of which were investor fantasies, but now are being taken more seriously–in a post titled “Could AOL Merge With Yahoo? Could News Corp. Make a Play? Takeover 2.0 With a Little Help From China’s Alibaba?”

Enjoy–although, as you will see, it’s the same scenarios floated then as now:

Today, as news of the departure of Yahoo’s U.S. head Hilary Schneider and two other top execs got around Wall Street, investors and dealmakers were actually thinking of things other than executive turmoil.

As in: Does the uncertainty, along with a naggingly lackluster stock price and weak growth, create pressure on its CEO Carol Bartz and its board to do something dramatic?

In addition, does the messy public situation even provide an opportunity to put Yahoo into play, despite its market cap of $19 billion?

These and many more are the scenarios being debated in boardrooms of big media and Internet companies today, as well as at private equity firms, investment banks and even in Asia.

That’s because many are focusing on Yahoo’s Asian investments. Yahoo itself owns almost 35 percent of Yahoo Japan and a 40 percent stake in China’s Alibaba Group, assets that now make up–along with cash on hand–most of the company’s valuation.

Alibaba and Yahoo have recently gotten into an ugly public tussle over the Chinese firm’s desire to buy back the shares now, with Bartz holding out for more appreciation.

Now, she might have to do a deal with Alibaba, according to one theory, because a sale of its stake would give Yahoo’s stock a significant boost.

One problem: Alibaba CEO Jack Ma has made it known to anyone who will listen that he loathes Bartz personally, after a series of awkward encounters. That said, he has a close relationship with former Yahoo CEO and co-founder Jerry Yang, who is on both companies’ boards.

That puts Ma in an interesting position, according to another theory, because other U.S. companies with an interest in Yahoo might try to make a deal with him to do some kind of deal with Yahoo.

Most frequently mentioned by big investors in Yahoo: AOL and its CEO Tim Armstrong.

Armstrong, said sources, has not shied away from the idea of Yahoo acquiring AOL and installing him as CEO with Bartz as chairman. AOL’s valuation is just $2.65 billion.

Although AOL has also been trying to turn itself around and is in a much less powerful position than Yahoo, Wall Street likes Armstrong’s story for AOL as a modern-day media and media distribution company.

“At least he has a narrative that is believable,” said one big investor in both companies. “Bartz has no vision.”

Another plus for Armstrong: His friendly and Don Draper-smooth demeanor, in contrast to Bartz’s tough-talking and now too-often curse-laden patter.

And while, Armstrong has assembled an experienced staff. And he himself has deep online advertising sales experience, given his last job as head of U.S. sales at Google.

Also likely to be interested: News Corp. The reason is that its own digital efforts, especially at the MySpace social networking site, have gone sideways.

And there’s history: News Corp. tried to facilitate a merger of MySpace, MSN and Yahoo into a company codenamed “TrafficCo” at the time Microsoft was attempting a takeover of Yahoo.

It was supposed to be headed by former Microsoft exec and now Juniper Networks CEO Kevin Johnson, another possible Yahoo CEO candidate.

That plot did not pan out and News Corp. has been trying mightily to revive MySpace ever since. It certainly would trade it into Yahoo for some stake.

Another hook: Its digital head Jon Miller, who used to be CEO of AOL, almost was CEO of Yahoo, during that same takeover fight. But a noncompete agreement with Time Warner was enforced by CEO Jeff Bewkes at the time.

Both AOL and News Corp. could certainly make approaches to Ma or Yahoo Japan’s Masayoshi Son to agree to help them get back their Yahoo stakes.

Son was the one who made the move recently to switch out Yahoo search for Google in Japan.

And, by the way, Son was one of Yahoo’s earliest investors.

Confused? Well, it is certainly shaping up to be a lively Silicon Valley goat rodeo, as there are also all kinds of private equity companies with spreadsheets already figured if Yahoo shares decline enough.

And there are other ideas spinning on spins into Yahoo, such as Demand Media, which is prepping an IPO, and its perpetually enthusiastic CEO Richard Rosenblatt.

One unlikely player is Microsoft. The once hostile suitor is now a partner to Yahoo in search and online advertising.

Of course, the last and biggest question is what happens between Bartz and the board. While they seem to have backed her this far, she has not performed as she has promised and now seems to have gotten publicly grumpy about all the pressure to do so.

Will the directors, who proved themselves pretty ineffectual in the past, continue to support her? Or will they find some self-protecting way to ease her out?

Some directors are definitely unhappy, sources said, but no one seems to be in charge or particularly influential.

Which could mean even more confusion as Yahoo moves unsteadily forward.

Make no mistake–there are no definitive offers on the table to do a variety of takeover deals of Yahoo by either private equity moneybags or from big media giants such as News Corp. or smaller Web firms such as AOL.

But that does not mean that major players are not circling Yahoo (YHOO) and assessing the situation aggressively, a fact reflected in the rise in the Internet giant’s stock price today based on the many rumors swirling around it.

Despite being news to some, BoomTown had previously written about all these various scenarios, including interest from News Corp. and AOL, after the recent departure of a trio of top Yahoo media and sales execs brought into sharp relief the pressure that CEO Carol Bartz is under to turn around the company.

Yahoo shares were up almost six percent to close at $15.25, a high of late. It is up to $16.20 in after-hours trading.

According to sources close to the situation, that’s because big PE firms such as Silver Lake Partners, as well as News Corp. (NWS), AOL (AOL) and others, all have their PowerPoints and speadsheets opened up to try to figure out if there is a deal to be made to buy all or a piece of Yahoo in the wake of corporate turmoil, slow revenue growth and weak stock under the leadership of CEO Carol Bartz.

Sources said the key players in the growing soap opera are the execs who run Yahoo-affiliated companies in Japan and China. That would be Masayoshi Son of Yahoo Japan and Jack Ma of the Alibaba Group.

Yahoo owns big and lucrative stakes in both companies, assets which make up a big part of the company’s current valuation.

The sale of those stakes is what has some investors interested, since–if thorny tax issues can be solved–it would make the purchase of part or all of the well-known Silicon Valley company very inexpensive in relative terms.

Sources added that any approach would have to be nonhostile, since Yahoo still has some stringent antitakeover provisions in place from a hostile attempt a few years ago by Microsoft (MSFT).

But alternate CEOs to Bartz are part of the ruminations:

As I wrote two weeks ago, which was again reported today:

Most frequently mentioned by big investors in Yahoo: AOL (AOL) and its CEO Tim Armstrong.

Armstrong, said sources, has not shied away from the idea of Yahoo acquiring AOL and installing him as CEO with Bartz as chairman. AOL’s valuation is just $2.65 billion.

Although AOL has also been trying to turn itself around and is in a much less powerful position than Yahoo, Wall Street likes Armstrong’s story for AOL as a modern-day media and media distribution company.

“At least he has a narrative that is believable,” said one big investor in both companies. “Bartz has no vision.”

Among the other credible candidates most mentioned: News Corp. digital head Jon Miller, if the media giant were part of any deal, and Juniper Networks (JNPR) CEO Kevin Johnson, who was the architect of the failed acquisition of Yahoo by Microsoft.

What’s interesting here is what the board–and, most specifically, co-founder and former CEO Jerry Yang–is doing now.

For certain, it is receiving an incoming flood of negative communications from big shareholders, most of whom are unhappy with Bartz’s management. One big investor recently told board members that their continued inaction in the face of all the trouble was unsettling.

One big event coming up is the third-quarter earnings report by Yahoo on Tuesday, after the market closes.

If Yahoo’s sales remain as flat as they were in the second quarter, even with improved earnings, there will be even more scrutiny of Bartz to find growth.

And if Yahoo misses? Watch out.

One way might be via a big acquisition. Yahoo has recently been contemplating the local space, especially social discounting phenom Groupon. But the price would have to be high, sources said–well above $2 billion in cash and stock.

Would such a bold move be enough to keep the predators of Yahoo at bay? We’ll see, as the purple world turns.

A Yahoo PR person declined to comment on the stock rise.

Of course, rising on speculation, a higher stock is a problem for acquirers, as it makes Yahoo more expensive. Still, sources said a Yahoo deal of about $20 a share is entirely “doable.”

Today, as news of the departure of Yahoo’s U.S. head Hilary Schneider and two other top execs got around Wall Street, investors and dealmakers were actually thinking of things other than executive turmoil.

As in: Does the uncertainty, along with a naggingly lackluster stock price and weak growth, create pressure on its CEO Carol Bartz and its board to do something dramatic?

In addition, does the messy public situation even provide an opportunity to put Yahoo into play, despite its market cap of $19 billion?

These and many more are the scenarios being debated in boardrooms of big media and Internet companies today, as well as at private equity firms, investment banks and even in Asia.

That’s because many are focusing on Yahoo’s Asian investments. Yahoo (YHOO) itself owns almost 35 percent of Yahoo Japan and a 40 percent stake in China’s Alibaba Group, assets that now make up–along with cash on hand–most of the company’s valuation.

Alibaba and Yahoo have recently gotten into an ugly public tussle over the Chinese firm’s desire to buy back the shares now, with Bartz holding out for more appreciation.

Now, she might have to do a deal with Alibaba, according to one theory, because a sale of its stake would give Yahoo’s stock a significant boost.

One problem: Alibaba CEO Jack Ma has made it known to anyone who will listen that he loathes Bartz personally, after a series of awkward encounters. That said, he has a close relationship with former Yahoo CEO and co-founder Jerry Yang, who is on both companies’ boards.

That puts Ma in an interesting position, according to another theory, because other U.S. companies with an interest in Yahoo might try to make a deal with him to do some kind of deal with Yahoo.

Most frequently mentioned by big investors in Yahoo: AOL (AOL) and its CEO Tim Armstrong.

Armstrong, said sources, has not shied away from the idea of Yahoo acquiring AOL and installing him as CEO with Bartz as chairman. AOL’s valuation is just $2.65 billion.

Although AOL has also been trying to turn itself around and is in a much less powerful position than Yahoo, Wall Street likes Armstrong’s story for AOL as a modern-day media and media distribution company.

“At least he has a narrative that is believable,” said one big investor in both companies. “Bartz has no vision.”

Another plus for Armstrong: His friendly and Don Draper-smooth demeanor, in contrast to Bartz’s tough-talking and now too-often curse-laden patter.

And while Bartz is losing execs, Armstrong has assembled an experienced staff. And he himself has deep online advertising sales experience, given his last job as head of U.S. sales at Google (GOOG).

Also likely to be interested: New Corp. The reason is that its own digital efforts, especially at the MySpace social networking site, have gone sideways.

And there’s history: News Corp. (NWS) tried to facilitate a merger of MySpace, MSN and Yahoo into a company codenamed “TrafficCo” at the time Microsoft was attempting a takeover of Yahoo.

It was supposed to be headed by former Microsoft exec and now Juniper (JNPR) CEO Kevin Johnson, another possible Yahoo CEO candidate.

That plot did not pan out and News Corp. has been trying mightily to revive MySpace ever since. It certainly would trade it into Yahoo for some stake.

Another hook: Its digital head Jon Miller, who used to be CEO of AOL, almost was CEO of Yahoo, during that same takeover fight. But a noncompete agreement with Time Warner (TWX) was enforced by CEO Jeff Bewkes at the time.

Both AOL and News Corp. could certainly make approaches to Ma or Yahoo Japan’s Masayoshi Son to agree to help them get back their Yahoo stakes.

Son was the one who made the move recently to switch out Yahoo search for Google in Japan.

And, by the way, Son was one of Yahoo’s earliest investors.

Confused? Well, it is certainly shaping up to be a lively Silicon Valley goat rodeo, as there are also all kinds of private equity companies with spreadsheets already figured if Yahoo shares decline enough.

And there are other ideas spinning on spins into Yahoo, such as Demand Media, which is prepping an IPO, and its perpetually enthusiastic CEO Richard Rosenblatt.

One unlikely player is Microsoft (MSFT). The once hostile suitor is now a partner to Yahoo in search and online advertising.

Of course, the last and biggest question is what happens between Bartz and the board. While they seem to have backed her this far, she has not performed as she has promised and now seems to have gotten publicly grumpy about all the pressure to do so.

Will the directors, who proved themselves pretty ineffectual in the past, continue to support her? Or will they find some self-protecting way to ease her out?

Some directors are definitely unhappy, sources said, but no one seems to be in charge or particularly influential.

Which could mean even more confusion as Yahoo moves unsteadily forward.

Until it all settles down, please enjoy this video of an actual goat rodeo:

Here’s how Yahoo’s top brass and board–with the help of its newly re-engaged crisis-management PR firm, Abernathy MacGregor–are already trying to spin the latest executive turmoil to hit the company:

Trashing those on the way out, to take focus off those remaining who have been just as responsible for driving the Internet icon and claiming that this is all part of yet another well-planned reorganization at Yahoo (YHOO).

Don’t believe most of it for a second. Some of it is corporate politics as usual, some of it rejiggering of events, some just not true at all.

After BoomTown’s scoop earlier today that Yahoo’s U.S. head Hilary Schneider, as well as Audience head David Ko and VP of Media Jimmy Pitaro, would be departing the company–all of which Yahoo is still planning to announce after the markets close on Friday–here comes this gem in a follow-up story in The Wall Street Journal:

“[Yahoo CEO Carol] Bartz, who joined Yahoo in January 2009, is in the midst of a turnaround effort. People familiar with the matter said she is removing the company’s old guard to assemble a new team.”

Let’s parse this ridonkulous spin-addled blame game, shall we?

Bartz is, in fact, the very person who picked all those execs for prime responsibility in her last reorg.

If they were so incompetent, why not dump them much quicker? After all, it’s not like the problems have not been mounting for months and months, with more and more talent taking off.

In addition, the exec exodus at Yahoo over the last year has been unrelenting and broad, encompassing way too many employees for her to act as if it were all planned and okay.

As to the “midst of a turnaround effort” canard that Bartz keeps insisting on, even comparing herself to Apple (AAPL) CEO Steve Job’s epic journey to return that legendary company to health?

Um, we are deep in the second year of the Bartz regime, and there appears to be no iPod-like save in sight, and it’s a little long in the tooth to keep using the turnaround excuse for all that has not yet happened under her command.

Which is to say, stock with a pulse and real growth across all metrics, as Facebook and Google (GOOG), to name a few, are showing.

In addition, it was Bartz herself who handed over a lot of the responsibility for the revival of Yahoo to Schneider.

Which meant Schneider had to be thrown under the wheels of the bus in the Journal by dragging out a very old–and tangential to the much larger flat revenue crisis at Yahoo–newspaper deal as pretty wet cannon fodder:

“Ms. Schneider is leaving because officials haven’t been satisfied with her performance, according to people familiar with the matter. Ms. Schneider was responsible for a 2006 deal with industry group Newspaper Consortium, in which Yahoo sold ads for newspaper websites and print editions. The effort continues but has not met Yahoo’s expectations, according to a person close to the company.”

Memo to readers: “People familiar with the matter,” I am guessing, would be current Yahoo execs.

The fact of the matter is that there have been both critics and admirers of Schneider at Yahoo, which comes as no surprise for one of its top execs. Some consider her smart and canny, while others complain of indecisiveness and slowness to act.

And, she has definitely had some very big whiffs, including the newspaper consortium, but most especially not finding an ad sales chief to replace Joanne Bradford, who left in March, about which I gave her a hard time when a very squishy structure was announced.

And, right now, sources tell me, Yahoo’s upcoming quarterly report could be an even tougher one.

And that falls to Schneider, of course, who has been in charge of its many partnerships, as well as advertising sales across the key Americas region.

Perhaps good reason for an ouster, except I have been tracking Schneider’s status for many months now, since hearing from many sources–not her, ever, in case you wanted to know–that she had told Bartz she wanted out.

Maybe that is what began to sour the boss on Schneider. But to now suddenly call her performance poor seems unusual, especially when you can just as easily point to Yahoo’s disastrous and pricey marketing campaigns–it is definitely not You!–helmed by CMO Elisa Steele, which has failed to move the needle on key user metrics.

But she has a tight relationship with Bartz, so she’s all right, jack? I am dizzy from all the spinning.

In other words, execs make mistakes and there is a lot of blame to go around and–as the old saying goes–the buck really does stop with Bartz.

But, guess what? Perhaps it should be noted that Bartz has also misstepped badly of late by making a series of wild remarks that have seriously angered many partners and other companies in Silicon Valley.

And I have heard from countless and very significant investors, all of whom are deeply concerned about her tone and recent public comments.

Just ask Yahoo Japan’s Masayoshi Son. Or Alibaba’s Jack Ma in China. Or the fine folks over at Apple in Cupertino, Calif.

And, I can also report that several execs at Yahoo’s new search technology partner, Microsoft, are also increasingly alarmed. Said one to me yesterday: “It is becoming a little unsettling.”

I can say for certain that Ko, who will doubtlessly be the next to get dinged, left on his own motor, telling Bartz himself recently.

He was quickly followed by Pitaro, who, as I reported earlier this week, is headed to another big company. No matter what the spin, his departure is a big loss, as he is well-liked inside and outside the company.

Then Schneider rounded out the latest trio of execs to go.

Thus, sources said, Yahoo is about to go on the offense, which is the expected thing to do, ready to announce a plan to move most of the product organization under Chief Product Officer Blake Irving.

The former Microsoft (MSFT) online exec is as sharp as a tack, in my experience, and clearly an even sharper corporate player, recently bringing in a series of his old cohorts from the software giant to take over big jobs at Yahoo.

He’s obviously now won some version of a corporate power play, and is now in favor with Bartz. But that means he’s being handed the entire thing.

Apparently, Irving has told numerous people that he plans to “rip it all down” and streamline the whole organization.

More rearranging at the company that has moved around the corporate living room umpteenth times over the past several years? Except it is still essentially the same room and same house.

Okay, Irving should probably have his choice of where the sofa goes, but as one exec wisely told me tonight: “Yahoo needs to build great products, not have another reorg….It needs a win.”

Indeed, just as board member Eric Hippeau apparently said at a recent meeting to deal with the latest executive kerfuffle.

Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock–who has presided over so many stumbles over the years that I have lost count–said to the room: “We need crisis management.”

Countered Hippeau, a longtime Internet exec who is now CEO of the Huffington Post: “What we need is revenue.”

Indeed. And innovation. And a vision. And, most of all, spin-free leadership.

How can BoomTown put this as delicately as Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz would?

How about this: Her actions in regard to the Internet giant’s Asian relationships are about as bad as it gets these days.

After losing Yahoo Japan’s search and online advertising business to Google (GOOG) last month, followed by the loss of a major South Korean site’s search business, Yahoo is poised for a third strike with its partner in China, the Alibaba Group.

Sources close to the company said it is likely Alibaba will either partner with another search technology for sites that are now powered by Yahoo (YHOO) or build it internally.

That inevitability became crystal clear after Bartz gave an interview to Reuters that was posted yesterday.

In it, she claimed that the Alibaba Group “constantly” was asking Yahoo about repurchasing its 40 percent stake in the company and she was always putting its execs off with a big, fat no.

Alibaba, which has been in several word wars with Yahoo since Bartz took over, begged to differ, noting there was only one legitimate offer and that Yahoo engaged in discussions over it.

So, not exactly a no.

Said an Alibaba PR spokesman in a statement:

“We made an offer that included a partial sale and a specific plan to maximize the value of their remaining stake. That offer was rejected, and they countered with a very different proposal, which we found unjustifiable, and we terminated the discussions.”

Bartz then stuck the knife in deeper in an interview in The Wall Street Journal, published today, noting, “I personally think what is happening is [Alibaba CEO] Jack Ma would like to go public and like some of his stock back.”

That’s probably true, given that the eventual IPO of Alibaba’s Taobao online retail unit will boost value of Yahoo’s stake.

Still, Bartz’s words were as impolitic as a public company CEO could make, especially after a series of gaffes related to its ally in China.

Alibaba has made no bones about wanting it and Yahoo to go their own separate ways, with one exec saying in an interview last week, “Why do we need a financial investor with no business synergy or technology?”

While such noise has all the signs of a negotiating tactic, the growing tensions between Yahoo and Alibaba are quite real, and born from a series of uncomfortable encounters between Bartz and Ma.

Remember, this is the same exec who sold off a piece of Alibaba to former Yahoo co-founder and CEO Jerry Yang, and with whom he had, and continues to have, a cordial relationship.

Yang is on the board of Alibaba, which is about to become another point of conflict after Bartz also said in the Journal interview that she “probably” would join it.

Said an Alibaba spokesman about that:

“Regarding reports of Carol Bartz seeking a board seat, we have no notice of that and also no notice of whether she intends to replace Jerry or seek an additional board seat.”

Now, that’s a nice welcome!

While sources said Alibaba is loath to have Bartz as a director, Yahoo does have the right to another seat on the four-person board, which also includes Masayoshi Son, the powerful Asian investor who was apparently behind the ending of Yahoo Japan’s search technology partnership with Yahoo.

It was Son himself, one of Yahoo’s earliest investors, several sources said, who jump-started the deal with Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

Why? According to numerous sources, the SoftBank founder had also soured on Yahoo management and its ability to monetize the very successful Yahoo Japan site.

While it might seem unusual that Yahoo Japan will be using Google’s search, it is not actually owned by Yahoo, which holds a 35 percent stake in the publicly traded company. SoftBank, the giant Japan-based Internet service provider and cell phone provider, has a stake of around 40 percent in Yahoo Japan.

As for NHN, which is South Korea’s largest Internet search engine, with a 65 percent share, it said in late August it would dump Yahoo technology and use its own after its deal ends later this year.

“We desperately need an advertising platform that’s more flexible and effective, with closer ties to the local market to respond to advertisers’ expectations promptly,” said NHN CEO Kim Sang Hun about ending its Yahoo relationship.

While each of these Asian situations are different, as Bartz will surely point out, it all adds up to trouble, given Yahoo has signed a deal with Microsoft (MSFT) to take over its search technology going forward globally.

Sources at Microsoft said management is exasperated at the turn of events, especially in Japan, which seemed a certainty for Yahoo to maintain as a partner.

The software giant has been trying to see if there are any ways to block the Google-Yahoo Japan deal via regulators there, which is a very long shot.

“Not ideal,” said one source close to the situation. “That would be an understatement.”

In this noisy war in Asia, perhaps understatement might be a good strategy going forward for Yahoo.

Until all the tension clears up, though, have a laugh at at this classic battle-of-wits scene from the movie “The Princess Bride,” which has the single best use of the classic land-war-in-Asia line:

If at first you don’t succeed, at least according to Google…try Japan.

In what amounts to an even more aggressive move than it made in trying–and failing due to regulatory objection–to strike a search partnership deal with Yahoo in the U.S. in 2008, Google and Yahoo Japan announced yesterday that the search giant will take over both the algorithmic and paid search businesses from, well, Yahoo.

If that sound confusing, it is because the Silicon Valley-based Yahoo owns only 35 percent of Yahoo Japan, which is an independent and separately traded company.

In fact, early Yahoo investor and Japanese telecommunications giant SoftBank Corp. has a larger stake and essentially controls Yahoo Japan.

Which is now free to leave Yahoo (YHOO) and to do a deal with Google (GOOG), it seems, after Yahoo struck a wide-ranging search technology and online deal of its own with Microsoft (MSFT) last year.

Under the terms of the deal, Yahoo outsourced its search technology to Microsoft’s Bing service.

Both Yahoo and Microsoft had hoped to keep Yahoo Japan in the fold, using Bing too, but it’s clear Google decided to get very competitive in a market where it has been the No. 2 player since it debuted its Japanese-language service in 2000.

Interestingly, Google was Yahoo Japan’s search technology provider for several years soon after it arrived, but that job then went to Yahoo.

In order to compete better with Yahoo Japan, which has a 53 percent market share compared to Google’s 38 percent, Google has tried a range of efforts unusual to its standard modus operandi

Those include PR stunts, brand advertising and even mucking up its pristine white main page with text and other noisy visual elements.

Because of that, Google has made market inroads, to be sure, cutting Yahoo Japan’s share slowly.

It’s an accomplishment that might have prompted Yahoo Japan to make a lucrative deal with the search giant, while the getting was good and before it lost more share.

As for Google, it stopped playing around and went for the actual business itself by effectively hip-checking Yahoo out of its spot.

And, at least in Japan, Google said regulators have already decided that its ambitious reach was not too much, even given the overwhelming share that will result with the Google-Yahoo Japan union.

Said a Google spokesman: “The companies have consulted with the Japan Fair Trade Commission, and confirmed that the JFTC has no objection to the proposed transaction.”

Incredible. And not in a good way.

That’s because a monopoly is a monopoly is a monopoly, no matter which language you say it in.

Even with apparent Japanese government approval, Microsoft is sure to try to scotch the deal, making hay with the fact that practically all the paid and algorithmic search in Japan would be under the control of one entity, especially so if it also includes mobile elements.

A lot is at stake for Microsoft, which is now in much bigger trouble in its quest to increase global market share for Bing.

That’s because Japan has close to 100 million active and wired consumers, many of whom are on the cutting edge of digital innovation. Japan is also a huge advertising market, second only to the U.S.

Given how important global growth is, it’s a market too juicy for growth-craving Google to pass up.

It is striking then that regulators will let the company enmesh its search service as deeply as it will with the Yahoo Japan move.

As with its scotched deal with Yahoo here–which Google abandoned after it was clear the U.S. government was not going to tolerate such market power in the hands of one player. At the time, Google said there would be plenty of competition, which it is now saying again.

In an email to me, Google PR dude Adam Kovacevich made the following salient points that I render here in their entirety:

It’s actually a different situation from the 2008 deal. To wit:

* Google will only be licensing its advertising platform services to YJC, and will not be providing its ads to appear on YJC. YJC will continue to manage their own advertising system and advertiser relationships, and both companies’ advertisers and advertising data will remain entirely separate.

* YJC will continue to compete as an independent online search and advertising company, and will be able to customize Google’s search service for their users–including how they see and experience search on YJC. Users should continue to expect to have very different experiences on YJC–whose portal approach to search is very popular in Japan–versus when they are on Google.

* This kind of arrangement is commonplace in the business world, and it doesn’t foreclose robust competition. Toyota sells its hybrid technology to Ford, even though they compete against one another in selling cars. Canon provides laser printer engines for HP, despite also competing in the broader laser printer market. And this is not the first time we’ve licensed our search technology to another portal site.

* The companies have consulted with the Japan Fair Trade Commission, and confirmed that the JFTC has no objection to the proposed transaction. We believe this is the correct outcome for a number of reasons, including the fact that the license will be non-exclusive, and both parties will be free to explore better products and services and work with third parties as they see fit. Competition between Google and YJC, as well as others in the online advertising market, will remain vigorous because their advertising operations will stay independent of one another, and there is competition with other online advertising service providers. In addition, from an advertiser perspective, online advertising is just one of many options available to them—including placing advertisements in traditional media.

Yes, the thriving newspaper business is a option! Wait a minute…

In any case, you might imagine the Japanese government would be a little more concerned.

It should be.

Regarding the Yahoogle attempt, as I also noted then:

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

But Japanese regulators don’t have to take my word for it–they can listen to a 2008 quote by SoftBank head Masayoshi Son, who plays a critical role on the board of Yahoo Japan and presumably blessed this new deal:

“Google is a worthy competitor. The common threat is Google. I say that with respect.”

And, with respect, perhaps Japanese regulators need to take a little bit more time in waving any such deal on through so quickly and without public comment.

As BoomTown reported earlier today, Yahoo Japan confirmed it would switch its search technology and paid search provider to Google from Yahoo.

The move is a definite blow to Yahoo’s new search and advertising alliance with Microsoft (MSFT), although Yahoo (YHOO) sought to minimize the damage in a statement (which you can read below in its entirety).

But make no mistake, given the huge Japanese market: It’s Googzilla totally wiping the floor with MicroHooSoftra.

While it might seem unusual that Yahoo Japan will be using Google’s search, the company is not actually owned by Yahoo, which holds a 35 percent stake.

SoftBank Corp., the giant Japan-based Internet service provider and cell phone provider, has a stake of around 40 percent in Yahoo Japan.

Both SoftBank Founder Masayoshi Son–one of the first key investors in Yahoo–and Yahoo co-founder Jerry Yang sit on the board of Yahoo Japan, which is operated independently as a separate publicly traded company run by President and CEO Masahiro Inoue.

Now that Yahoo Japan and Google (GOOG) have announced their engagement–in a statement at the time of Yahoo Japan’s first-quarter earnings announcement–it is certain that Microsoft will move to stop deal from gaining regulatory approval in Japan, even though a Google spokesman told BoomTown it had already consulted the proper authorities in Japan and had gotten no objections.

Still, I would not expect Microsoft to settle for that, and it is likely to do some lobbying
much as it did successfully when Google tried to enter into a similar deal with Yahoo itself in the U.S. in 2008.

That deal failed after government opposition to the creation of a near-monopoly in search in the U.S. became clear.

In Japan the combination is even worse, with the pair controlling almost the entire market share of search there, both paid and algorithmic.

In search query volume, according to one recent report, Yahoo Japan currently has just over a 53 percent share of the search market and Google has just over 38 percent.

Other polls differ, but it all spells an overwhelming and definite monopoly when combined.

Coincidentally, Bing just entered the Japan market with its branded search, but it has only a small share there of almost three percent.

The same market share among the big players holds in paid search too, with Yahoo Japan and Google controlling almost the whole thing between them.

Maintaining a modicum of competition in Japan was Yahoo’s to lose. And lose it did.

After Yahoo and Microsoft struck their wide-ranging search and online advertising partnership last year, Yahoo Japan–which now uses Yahoo technology for algorithmic and paid search–was then free to pick whatever search service it wanted.

Most expected it to use Microsoft’s Bing technology, which will be powering Yahoo in the U.S. by the end of the year, as well as in many other countries where Yahoo operates.

But, because Yahoo Japan is its own entity, any such deal needed to be negotiated among the parties, putting Yahoo Japan in play, much as if it were AOL (AOL) or News Corp. (NWS) unit MySpace in the U.S.

Investors are sure to ask what Yahoo management was doing as the Google effort took shape.

Those efforts obviously paid off, despite a declaration by Yahoo Japan’s Inoue in an January interview with a Japanese news organization that he was not impressed with some other Google services, such as its Street View mapping service.

Thus, the fallout from this is likely to be tough on Yahoo and also its nascent search relationship with Microsoft.

Yahoo Japan said the date of the switch was yet to be determined.

Here’s the statement from Yahoo on the changeover:

Yahoo! Japan announced that it has chosen to implement Google as its backend algorithmic search engine and paid search infrastructure. Yahoo! Japan made this decision as an independent and separate publicly traded company, in which Yahoo! holds a 35% equity interest. We amended our agreement with Yahoo! Japan as a result of this decision, and we do not anticipate that this amendment will have a material financial impact on our revenues. We will provide support, as required by our agreement, for the search experience Yahoo! Japan has chosen for its business, and we will continue to partner closely with Yahoo! Japan in other areas including mail, messenger, mobile, our content properties and more.

This decision by Yahoo! Japan does not impact the global rollout and implementation of the Yahoo! search alliance with Microsoft, except in the Japanese market. We remain confident in our transition plans for the search alliance, are driving innovation in the user experience around search on the Yahoo! network, and continue to be committed to our alliance with Microsoft.

In what would be a stunning blow to the massive search alliance between Microsoft and Yahoo, Google is apparently zeroing in on a deal to grab the algorithmic search business for Yahoo Japan, said several sources.

The agreement between Yahoo Japan and the U.S. search giant could be announced as early as today in Japan, sources said, and could be part of a larger deal between the two companies around mobile or other products.

Financial terms of such a deal were unclear.

News of the deal could come when Yahoo Japan announces its financial results at 3:10 pm Japan time on July 27, which is 11:10 pm PT today.

If Google (GOOG) and Yahoo Japan join together, the pair will control almost the entire market share of search in the Japanese market. It is not clear whether or not paid search is part of this deal at this time.

But in search query volume, Yahoo Japan currently has just over a 53 percent share of the search market and Google has just over 38 percent.

It is a monopoly in comparison to Microsoft, which has almost a three percent share.

Yahoo Japan is not actually owned by Yahoo, which holds a 35 percent stake. SoftBank Corp. has a stake of around 40 percent.

Both SoftBank Founder Masayoshi Son–one of the first key investors in Yahoo–and Yahoo co-founder Jerry Yang sit on the board of Yahoo Japan, which is operated independently and run by President and CEO Masahiro Inoue.

When Yahoo (YHOO) and Microsoft (MSFT) struck their wide-ranging search and online advertising partnership last year, Yahoo Japan–which now uses Yahoo technology for algorithmic search–was free to pick whatever search service it wanted.

That meant it was not obligated to use Microsoft’s Bing technology, which will be powering Yahoo in the U.S. by the end of the year, as well as in many other countries where Yahoo operates.

But, because Yahoo Japan is its own entity, any such deal was to be negotiated among the parties, putting Yahoo Japan in play, much as if it were AOL (AOL) or News Corp. (NWS) unit MySpace in the U.S.

Both those companies signed search deals with Google–and both are also now up for renewal.

Coincidentally, Bing just entered the Japan market with its branded search, but it has only a small share there.

And, ironically, Yahoo Japan’s Inoue said in an interview in January with a Japanese news organization that he was not impressed with some other Google services, such as its Street View mapping service.

In any case, if Yahoo Japan and Google do buddy up, it’s clear that Microsoft will likely try to block the deal from gaining regulatory approval in Japan, much in the same way it did successfully when Google tried to enter into a deal with Yahoo in the U.S. in 2008.

That deal crashed and burned after government opposition became evident.

It will also be interesting to see which search technology the Alibaba Group, which owns Yahoo’s name in China and of which Yahoo itself owns 40 percent, will select or if it will do search on its own.

Like Yahoo Japan, Alibaba–which is using Yahoo’s search and email technology now–is also not obligated to switch to Bing when Yahoo does. Such a deal is also subject to negotiation.

That said, Google’s relations with China remain tense, which could play a role in any talks with Alibaba.

Emails and calls to spokespeople at Yahoo, Yahoo Japan and SoftBank seeking confirmation were not returned as yet. Microsoft declined to comment.

According to a new survey from the MM Research Institute, Apple’s iconic handset has captured 72.2 percent of the Japanese smartphone market. Of the 2.3 million smartphones sold in Japan during the 12-month period ending March 31, 1.69 million were Apple (AAPL) iPhones.

Astonishing, though really, we should have seen this coming after SoftBank founder Masayoshi Son’s enthusiastic remarks about the device earlier this year.

“When we launched the iPhone [in the summer of 2008], some people said those phones were not suited for Japanese cellphone users,” he said during a February earnings call. “Those [skeptics] have been proven completely wrong….The iPhone is selling so well that we are really feeling the boost from it….[It was] the biggest contributor to third-quarter handset sales.”

Yeah, the Japanese sure do hate the iPhone…

[Image credits: iPhonAsia, MM Research Institute]

In New Zealand, where the deck chairs and sleeping bags began appearing Tuesday night outside the Auckland shop of Vodafone, the line included a customer who traveled to New Zealand from San Luis Obispo, Calif., simply to purchase the phone before it went on sale in any other country. Also in line: some folks with more nefarious purposes.

Back in the states, the sustainable-agriculture activists who dominated the queue outside Apple’s (AAPL) Fifth Avenue store earlier this week were quickly overwhelmed by less altruistic iPhone activators. No reason to break out the iPod white riot gear yet, though.

And, then there were the profiteers. For those not willing to spend the night squatting on the sidewalk outside an Apple store, the rate for a decent spot in line at many of Apple’s US retail stores was $50 or more. “I will have the rest of the family stay in line. I will have FOUR (4) extra spots so you don’t have to camp out,” read one ad on craigslist. “You give me $75 cash and you will have a spot in line.”

And, if you still happen to be waiting in line, describing exactly MacRumors has graciously posted an Apple Retail document what you have to look forward to.