Readers of today’s New York Times got an eyeful of Patrick, the auto-racing driver who has starred in numerous provocative Go Daddy TV spots, in a full-page ad that appeared in the newspaper’s A section. (I snapped the image at right with my iPhone.)

If Go Daddy is looking for a tactic to help it change the subject from its sudden about-face in supporting the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) now before Congress, this probably isn’t it. Having initially supported SOPA — and faced with a sudden exodus of thousands of customers who moved their domain-name registrations to other outfits — Go Daddy suddenly had a change of heart, and issued a statement saying it “no longer supports SOPA.”

Resorting to cheeky ads isn’t exactly going to reduce the outrage people feel against the company. Its CEO, Bob Parson, sparked a smaller controversy when he posted a video of himself killing a wild elephant in Zimbabwe and then letting locals feast on it. A small boycott effort slowed the company’s growth for a few weeks, but ultimately caused little damage.

But 37,000 domains lost in two days, plus all the negative press, can’t help but get some attention. Hence the about-face, and the attempt, cheap as it may be, to try to change the subject. Perhaps another outrageous TV spot during the Super Bowl? One wonders if the group of private equity firms that bought out Go Daddy for $2.25 billion earlier this year — they include KKR, Silver Lake Partners and Technology Crossover Ventures — still think it was a good deal.

Earlier this morning, Zynga announced it would price its stock between $8.50 and $10 a share when it goes public later this month.

That’s at the high end of the range that values the four-year-old company at as much as $7 billion. But that’s much lower than than what some investors paid as recently as February, according to documents filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission.

In fact, some of its investors are already underwater.

One of those investors is Morgan Stanley, which is also one of the company’s underwriters in its IPO. In February, 11 mutual funds associated with Morgan Stanley purchased 5.3 million shares at $14 apiece for a total of $75 million. Four other investors, which were unnamed, also contributed to the round totaling $490 million, according to the document.

At $14 a share, the company’s value in February totaled nearly $10 billion, or roughly 43 percent greater than today’s high-end of the range.

Zynga justified the higher stock price back in February, stating that the U.S. economy had improved and that the public markets were being receptive to Internet stocks, including generous valuations for privately held companies such as Facebook and Groupon.

Furthermore, in March, the company used that valuation as a guide to purchase shares back from five of its early investors and its CEO Mark Pincus at $13.96 a share.

While the market conditions have likely changed since then, it’s important to note that things are still in flux. If the company drums up enough demand for the 115 million shares being sold over the next two weeks, the price could move even higher.

As Kara Swisher previously reported, Pincus will not sell any shares in the offering, and no other executives at Zynga have plans to sell stock, either.

But a number of the company’s early investors will be cashing in. Institutional Venture Partners, Avalon Ventures and Foundry Venture Capital will sell 2.5 million shares apiece for up to $25 million each. Union Square Ventures will sell 2.2 million for roughly $22 million.  Google and Silver Lake Partners will also both sell 1.7 million shares for a proceed of $17 million each.

Google was originally not listed as an investor when Zynga filed documents with the SEC to go public, but it showed up in subsequent filings. Google, which was rumored to have invested as much as $100 million in Zynga, has an interest in social gaming because of its Google+ network. Following the offering, it will continue to own 21 million shares, or about 3.8 percent of the company.

One notable shareholder that won’t be selling shares is venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, an early investor in the company. Its partner Bing Gordon, who personally owns a 10.7 percent stake in the company, also does not plan to sell any shares.

Emboldened by its success earlier this year with the $8.5 billion sale of Skype to Microsoft Corp., the technology-focused firm is hoping to orchestrate a deal to buy all or part of Yahoo, right the struggling Internet company and reap a rich return in the process.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

According to sources at the company, Yahoo’s Carol Bartz is no longer CEO of Yahoo. CFO Tim Morse has been named interim CEO.

The situation around what is clearly an ouster is uncertain, but Bartz has had a very rocky tenure in her 32 months at the company.

[UPDATE: Yahoo confirmed the departure of Bartz in a press release outlining a reorganization.]

Bartz also sent a stunning email to staff, saying she had been ousted:

To all,

I am very sad to tell you that I’ve just been fired over the phone by Yahoo’s Chairman of the Board. It has been my pleasure to work with all of you and I wish you only the best going forward.

Carol

Several sources said the board, specifically Chairman Roy Bostock and Co-founder, as well as director Jerry Yang, acted today, informing Bartz by phone of the need to make a change.

What the next steps will be are unclear, but Yahoo needs desperately to explore a range of strategic changes to bring it back to its former glory.

But Wall Street liked the move, with Yahoo stock up more than six percent already in after-hours trading.

Sources said Morse held a call with Yahoo’s senior staff this afternoon, telling them Bartz was out and that a search for a permanent CEO will be commencing.

Why Yahoo’s board did not name a new leader immediately is curious and might indicate a larger deal around Yahoo is in the offing.

As I wrote earlier today, when the Internet giant announced on January 13, 2009, that it had hired longtime Silicon Valley tech veteran — who was well-regarded for her tenure at running Autodesk — to replace outgoing CEO and co-founder Yang and turn around the company, there was much hope.

At the time, she presented a take-no-prisoners image and was touted as someone with a reputation as a professional manager who could clean up the place.

Not so, as it has turned out.

While Bartz has streamlined certain areas and made some strong management hires, her performance has been decidedly bumpy and mostly downhill.

The share price has settled in at about $12.50 (just about where it was when Bartz took over), Yahoo’s recent financial results have been weak, its key advertising business is struggling, its attrition rate among engineers and others is startlingly high and its product innovation cycle seems stopped up.

Add to that: Weak relationships with key Asian partners, a pricey but failed marketing effort and a proclivity for embarrassing verbal gaffes by Bartz.

Still, given that Yahoo’s Internet traffic, top media sites and brand remain huge, the going-sideways situation has again caused some investors — including powerful private equity firms and other monied investors — to pull out their spreadsheets about a variety of scenarios related to Yahoo.

The players who have sniffed around of late are powerful, sources said, including Silver Lake Partners, Andreessen Horowitz, former News Corp. exec Peter Chernin and Providence Equity Partners, among others. Also in the Wall Street rumor mill recently are large companies: AT&T, News Corp. and Verizon.

All the schemes are different — ranging from taking it private to making a large investment to splitting it into parts — although they all seem to require cooperation with Yahoo to get done.

And while there is no serious effort afoot as yet, there have been increasing signs of late that Yahoo’s board is ready to listen to any serious offers, said multiple sources, especially as the company has continued to drift under the leadership of Bartz.

While board chairman Bostock has publicly backed Bartz — after all, he was her biggest champion at the time of her hiring — multiple sources said he had started to become more involved at looking at the management issues at the company and its challenges.

Yang — still a key figure at Yahoo — has also become more active, said sources, and tensions between him and Bartz have increased over the last few months.

The increasing pressure on the directors of the company from its major shareholders to act has gained in recent months, said sources.

Thus, Bartz is gone and the next chapter in Yahoo’s corporate drama begins.

[Photo credit: Asa Mathat for All Things Digital]

Related posts

• As Yahoo Continues to Wobble, Investors (And Board) Eye Options
• Exclusive: Carol Bartz Out at Yahoo; CFO Tim Morse Named Interim CEO
• Carol Bartz’s Last F%*& You — Now Aimed at Yahoo Board
• Yahoo’s Statement on Bartz Ouster
• Wall Street Likes Bartz’s Firing — Yahoo Stock Spikes on News
• My Picks for Yahoo’s Next CEO — Maybe Snoop Dogg, Ya Digg?

When Yahoo announced on January 13, 2009, that it had hired longtime Silicon Valley tech veteran Carol Bartz to replace outgoing CEO and co-founder Jerry Yang and turn around the company, there was a sigh of relief.

At the time, she presented a take-no-prisoners image and was touted as someone with a reputation as a professional manager who could clean up the place.

Not so, as it has turned out.

While Bartz has streamlined certain areas and made some strong management hires, her performance has been decidedly bumpy and mostly downhill. (Update: And this afternoon that ride took her straight out the door.)

Consider: The share price has settled in at about $12.50 (just about where it was when Bartz took over), Yahoo’s recent financial results have been weak, its key advertising business is struggling, its attrition rate among engineers and others is startlingly high and its product innovation cycle seems stopped up. Add to that: Weak relationships with key Asian partners, a pricey but failed marketing effort and a proclivity for verbal gaffes by Bartz.

Still, given that Yahoo’s Internet traffic, top media sites and brand remain huge, the going-sideways situation has again caused some investors — including powerful private equity firms and other monied investors — to pull out their spreadsheets about a variety of scenarios related to Yahoo.

The players who have sniffed around of late are powerful, sources said, including Silver Lake Partners, Andreessen Horowitz, former News Corp. exec Peter Chernin and Providence Equity Partners, among others. Also in the Wall Street rumor mill recently are large companies: AT&T, News Corp. and Verizon.

“It’s hard to ignore all that value sitting there and not being managed properly,” said one person who is considering a variety of investing options related to Yahoo. “And it’s not like AOL, whose assets are so weak, so it seems like an opportunity.”

All the schemes are different — ranging from taking it private to making a large investment to splitting it into parts — although they all seem to require cooperation with Yahoo to get done.

And while there is no serious effort afoot as yet, there are increasing signs that Yahoo’s board is ready to listen to any serious offers, said multiple sources, especially as the company has continued to drift under the leadership of Bartz.

While board chairman Roy Bostock has publicly backed Bartz — after all, he was her biggest champion at the time of her hiring — multiple sources said he has started to become more involved at looking at the management issues at the company and its challenges.

Yang — still a key figure at Yahoo — has also become more active, said sources, and tensions between him and Bartz have increased over the last few months.

While this might, as often happens at Yahoo, lead nowhere, what’s clear is the increasing pressure on the directors of the company from its major shareholders to act.

“You watch an asset like that degrade and it makes you furious,” said one investor. “After a while, you hope it makes the board at Yahoo feel the same.”

Yahoo declined to comment (but so would I).

Related posts

• As Yahoo Continues to Wobble, Investors (And Board) Eye Options
• Exclusive: Carol Bartz Out at Yahoo; CFO Tim Morse Named Interim CEO
• Carol Bartz’s Last F%*& You — Now Aimed at Yahoo Board
• Yahoo’s Statement on Bartz Ouster
• Wall Street Likes Bartz’s Firing — Yahoo Stock Spikes on News
• My Picks for Yahoo’s Next CEO — Maybe Snoop Dogg, Ya Digg?

The deal marks continued consolidation in the Internet domain-name space. Network Solutions competes with GoDaddy Group Inc., which agreed last month to sell itself to private-equity firms KKR & Co., Silver Lake Partners and Technology Crossover Ventures for $2.25 billion, including debt. GoDaddy.com, the company’s flagship Web property, is the world’s largest registrar of domain names.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

“All these bitches and niggas still hatin’
I used to be ballin’, but now I’m Bill Gate-in’”
–Lil’ Wayne

Shortly after we started Andreessen Horowitz, we, along with our partners at Silver Lake Partners and Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, bought Skype from eBay for slightly more than $2B. The investment generated a tremendous amount of controversy for us. Marc and I were known as angel investors, so investing $50M of our $300M fund in one deal surprised people. While consistent with our stage-agnostic strategy, it was a very big deal very early on in the fund. To make matters more exciting, other investors and writers broadly criticized the deal. Joe Nocera of the New York Times wrote:

“Many people on Wall Street–and a number of telecommunications experts I spoke to this week–were stunned by the price Skype sold for, and not just because we’re in the middle of a recession.”

That controversy ended this morning when Microsoft announced that it was buying Skype for $8.5B less than two years after we bought it from eBay.

Let’s look back at the original decision and see why it turned out well. At the time, people criticized us for two primary reasons:

1. Ebay might not have owned Skype’s underlying intellectual property. Skype’s founders, Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis, held an IP claim against Skype. Many speculated that the founders would use their claim to shut down Skype and leave investors with nothing. This made the company theoretically impossible to buy.

As Nocera wrote:

“And so, the mystery of the Skype deal: why were the winning bidders willing to pay so high a price for a company whose very existence could be threatened by this lawsuit? One possibility is that they have nerves of steel. The other is that they know something nobody else does.”

2. The shifting technology landscape would tilt the playing field away from Skype. While Skype won the original Internet telephony wars, they did so with a fat desktop client. From a technology standpoint, at the time, it was technically impossible to field a high-quality web client or mobile product, but that time wouldn’t last. Many observers believed–as the world inevitably transitioned to mobile and web–Skype would be left in the dust.

With a company as complex as Skype, investors draw different conclusions about the same facts. In this case we had the same data as everybody else, but we had a radically higher opinion of Skype’s founders and employees than the investors who passed on the deal. We believed that we could work with rather than against the founders. More importantly, we believed that Skype’s engineering team, led by the original Eastern European wizards who created the service, could compete and win against anybody.

We thought that Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis wanted Skype to be a huge success and would do everything in their power to make that happen. As a result, we did not think the doomsday scenario that greatly concerned other investors–that the founders would attempt to shut down the company through the courts–was an actual possibility. Based on the founder’s motivations, we felt that we’d quickly settle the IP litigation. Both sides wanted to get on with the business of making Skype more competitive and could not afford to waste time bickering about IP ownership.

We couldn’t have been more right about that. After quickly settling the litigation, both founders immediately made major contributions to the business through their energy, insight, and intellectual prowess. And boy did we need them to do that, because we soon faced full frontal assaults from both Google and Apple.

When giants attack

In a direct attack, Google offered a free competitor to Skype’s U.S. paid product and a heavily discounted competitor to Skype’s international product. Google then aggressively promoted these cheap products to their enormous Gmail user base by forcing every Gmail user to view Google’s Internet telephony advertisement before allowing them to access their email. What was the result of this effort? Skype new users and usage growth has accelerated since Google’s launch culminating in:

· 500,000 new registered users per day
· 170 million connected users
· 30 million users communicating on the Skype platform concurrently
· 209 billion voice and video minutes in 2010

On the mobile front, Apple built video calling right into the iPhone, making their product the default offering for iPhone users. How did that impact Skype’s usage on the iPhone? 50 million users have downloaded Skype’s iPhone product since the release of Apple’s Facetime.

In retrospect, it was easy for people to underestimate the quality of the Skype engineering team and the power of Skype’s network effect. When we bought the company from eBay, many thought that Skype, like so many acquired technology companies, had lost its technical talent. Through our research we found that Skype had a core group of engineers who were completely dedicated to the mission. They stayed through the eBay acquisition and were determined to make Skype the communications company of the future. Over the past decade, this team consistently introduced groundbreaking technologies ranging from highly resilient and scalable peer-to-peer networking to radically higher sound quality through dramatically superior codecs. In doing so, Skype out-innovated the competition in the most important areas. When combined with its powerful network effect–how valuable is a video calling service if there is nobody to call?–Skype became a formidable competitor.

Smart move, Microsoft

Today, I tip my hat to an old rival, Microsoft. By acquiring Skype, Microsoft becomes a much stronger player in mobile and the clear market leader in Internet voice and video communications. More importantly, Microsoft gets a team, led by the exceptional Tony Bates, that can compete with anyone.

Ben Horowitz is co-founder and general partner of Andreessen Horowitz. He co-founded Loudcloud, later renamed Opsware Inc., in 1999 and served as CEO of the company before it was acquired in 2007 by Hewlett-Packard. He was most recently vice president and general manager of Hewlett-Packard’s Business Technology Organization Unit.

When a group of powerful investors, including Silver Lake Partners and Andreessen Horowitz, waded into the mess at Skype less than two years ago with a $1.9 billion cash investment for a big chunk of the company, it was–how can BoomTown put this delicately–a hot mess.

With lawsuits flying over intellectual property violations, turmoil in the relationship with its eBay owners and increasing competitive pressures, you get the mess part.

But there was also the hot, because of so much potential in the fast-growing Internet telephony and video communications company.

Hotter today, it seems.

Microsoft–in what would be its most aggressive acquisition by the software giant in the digital space–is poised to announce that it will buy Skype, forking over $8.5 billion all in, which includes the assumption of the Luxembourg-based company’s debt.

Sources said that the splashy deal is now done and will be announced early this morning to much fanfare.

That is a far cry from 2009.

In fact, at the time that his newly hatched venture firm made its biggest deal yet, Silicon Valley legend Marc Andreessen was all sunshine and ponies about the just-settled tense legal situation.

As I wrote after talking to him then:

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

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

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

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

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

It turns out he was right, given the haul that Andreesen Horowitz and other investors will be getting now.

The price tag essentially tripled the $2.75 billion valuation then. In fact, a year before, eBay had actually written down the value of Skype to $1.9 billion.

That means for its $65 million–it was reported then the Andresseen Horowitz stake was $50 million, but it was more–it will nail nearly $200 million.

That could be much more depending on what percentage of the deal the VC firm actually got.

Andreessen Horowitz’s stake is joined with Silver Lake, as well as the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.

In total, they own about 56 percent of Skype, worth about $4.5 billion.

Another 30 percent is owned by eBay, which seems to have done a little better than even-steven for all its trouble with Skype.

It will get $2.4 billion now, having paid out about $3 billion back in 2005 for Skype. It got the $1.9 billion in the latest investor deal in 2009.

The big winners are Zennström and Friis, who keep on selling the same company to corporate moneybags over and over, while also suing anyone who looks at them crossways.

The Skype co-founders–who started out as Internet scofflaws with their Kazaa music-stealing service–had a 14 percent share, giving them $1.1 billion.

Like I said–not that I actually invest in any of these tech companies I cover–I’ll have what the lawsuit twins and Andreessen are having.

Back in 2009, in fact, he laid it out with regards to Skype pretty presciently.

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

Big, apparently, now that Microsoft is footing the bill.

The Wall Street Journal reported earlier tonight that Microsoft–in what would be its most aggressive acquisition in the digital space–was zeroing in on buying Skype for $8.5 billion all in with an assumption of the Luxembourg-based company’s debt.

Sources told BoomTown tonight that the deal for the online telephony and video communications giant is actually done and will be announced early tomorrow morning.

The purchase–which has been spearheaded in closely held negotiations by Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, with an assist from Business Division CFO Amy Hood and top dealmaker Charles Songhurst–is a bold move for the software giant and its biggest acquisition in more than three decades.

The big price will give Microsoft–which has struggled in its online efforts and has lost billions of dollars for its work–a big brand name on the Web.

With Skype, which has been aggressively expanding, Microsoft will continue to lose money in its Internet efforts. Skype lost $7 million on revenue of $860 million. Operating profits, which Skype preferred to highlight, were $264 million.

And–let us not forget–Skype’s debt is $686 million. Silver lining: That’s slightly less than Microsoft’s Online Services division losses in its most recent quarter!

But, sources said, the concept is bigger than just money, including getting access to Skype’s 663 million registered users.

Skype, which had been headed bumpily toward an IPO until now, will apparently be integrated into Microsoft’s Windows Live and other online communications efforts in both the consumer and enterprise arenas, sources said.

Think Kinect connecting.

Skype has had a big-company owner before–eBay Inc. paid $2.6 billion in cash and stock for it in 2005, as a way for the auction site’s buyers and sellers to communicate.

A 70 percent stake in Skype was sold in 2009 to investors such as Silver Lake Partners, Andreessen Horowitz, and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. It then valued Skype at $2.75 billion.

So, obviously, the deal is a big win for them. In addition, at the time they made their investments, Skype was a huge legal mess with lawsuits flying.

Skype has since gotten cleaned up enough to attract Microsoft.

Other suitors have looked at Skype, including Google, although acquisition interest by Facebook was very much overblown, said several sources.

Interestingly, Microsoft’s new smartphone partner Nokia also held meetings with Skype’s CEO Tony Bates, a former Cisco exec who arrived at the company last fall.

Interest in Skype by Microsoft was first reported by GigaOm’s Om Malik on Sunday.

Tune in at 5 am PT for the official press release, apparently, and lots and lots and lots of analysis of whether Microsoft paid too much for Skype.

While no one inside or outside Myspace owner News Corp. expects fireworks and giant piles of money, the tire-kicking for the long-troubled social-networking-turned-entertainment site actually starts Wednesday.

That’s when about a dozen interested parties will finally get a walk-through of the books and more by management and the serious talks begin.

But, said several sources, despite a variety of reports of various interested buyers, no deal for the Beverly Hills, Calif.-based Myspace is imminent with any one of them.

Instead, most expect some kind of outcome within two weeks at the earliest.

Among the possibilities is anything from an outright sale to partnership that continues to involve News Corp., which has engaged Allen & Co. to conduct the sad proceedings.

Among those in the fray are, as has been reported, music video network Vevo, owned by several media giants. It is the most prominent strategic suitor for Myspace.

But talks with Vevo are preliminary, as are all others.

In fact, most of the others interested are as expected: moneybag private equity players, such as Providence Equity Partners and Silver Lake Partners. Both have been in discussions with News Corp. in earlier efforts to offload Myspace.

Interestingly, Criterion Capital Partners, which bought AOL’s Bebo social networking site for less than $10 million last June, is not in the bidding as yet.

Neither is Zynga, the San Francisco casual gaming start-up. Various stories had rumored of its interest in Myspace, but they are inaccurate. In addition, neither AOL nor Yahoo seem likely bidders either.

And it goes without saying that the Silicon Valley social networking site that did Myspace in–Facebook–is also not a buyer. So too Google, which–back in the headier days–handed Myspace a fortune as part of an ill-advised advertising deal.

In any case, whoever buys Myspace needs a lot of patience, which seems to have run out at News Corp., where top execs take turns bashing it to shareholders.

That’s no surprise. After a laudable though glacial redesign as a music and entertainment hub last fall, traffic has declined 44 percent in a recent month from a year ago, to 37.7 million unique visitors in the U.S.

Worse still, the News Corp. unit that houses Myspace showed an operating loss of $156 million in the recent quarter, mostly related to a severe drop-off of advertising revenue at the site.

That plunge in fortunes will surely have an impact on the price buyers are willing to pay for the once iconic brand.

(Full disclosure: News Corp. also owns Dow Jones, which owns this site.)

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.”

Announced moments ago, the two-phase deal will see Avaya customers first given access to Skype Connect, the company’s play at the IP-enabled PBX and Unified Communications (UC) market. Later, by the second half of 2011, the two companies will further integrate their communications platforms so that Avaya and Skype users can interact with one one another via presence, instant messaging, voice and video.

The deal will give Skype more access to the enterprise market through the sales and distributions channels of Avaya, and Skype says the integrated product will address corporate concerns about security and communication management. For Avaya, having Skype and its hundreds of millions of users is a nice way to differentiate itself from rival Cisco (CSCO).

Acting as middleman in the deal–private equity group Silver Lake Partners, which bought Avaya in 2007 for $8.2 billion and later bought a majority stake in Skype from eBay (EBAY) for $1.9 billion.

Avaya and Skype Sign Strategic Agreement for Business Communications and Collaboration Solutions

BASKING RIDGE, NJ and LUXEMBOURG–(Marketwire – September 29, 2010) – Avaya, a global leader in enterprise communications systems, software and services, and Skype today announced a strategic agreement to deliver innovative, real-time communications and collaboration solutions to businesses of all sizes. The multi-phase deal includes both go-to-market and an industry-first, joint technology integration that seeks to enable businesses to lower costs and expand how employees, customers, partners and suppliers communicate and collaborate with greater convenience and efficiency.

In the first phase of the agreement, Avaya customers in the U.S. market will have access to Skype Connect(TM), a product which adds Skype calling to IP-based enterprise communications systems, providing a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) communications channel between Avaya communications systems and Skype. Customers with Avaya Aura(TM) Session Manager or Avaya Aura SIP Enablement Server, CS1000, Avaya IP Office, or BCM systems can use Skype Connect to place calls globally for increased reach, while aiming to save on international calling. Enterprise-level security and features such as tracking, recording, regulatory compliance, and more are provided by the Avaya system.

Skype reported 124 million average monthly connected users during the second quarter of 2010. Now, Skype users can make inbound calls to Avaya customers in the U.S. market for free or at a low cost. Calls will be treated with Avaya’s routing, conferencing, messaging, mobility and contact center capabilities, as well as other collaboration services. For example, businesses can:

Establish Skype Click & Call buttons for inbound calling from Web sites
Establish Skype Online Numbers for inbound calling from landline and mobile phones
Route inbound calls from a Skype user to an enterprise extension

Avaya customers in the U.S. market who are interested in Skype Connect can speak with their Avaya sales representative or an Avaya Connect channel partner contacts beginning in October.

In the second half of 2011, Avaya and Skype plan to deliver integrated unified communications and collaboration solutions for enterprises within the U.S. The integration is intended to establish federation between Avaya Aura and Skype communications platforms and both user communities, so that an Avaya end-user and Skype user can engage and interact via presence, instant messaging, voice and video. A business, for example, could use Skype to access an Avaya-based contact center in a simple and highly integrated way to quickly and efficiently resolve customer service issues. The integrated solutions will also allow enterprise IT managers to manage and control the inter-connectivity between end users to meet their corporate IT policies.

“Avaya and Skype have been working along parallel paths to offer innovative, scalable, low cost, SIP-based communications to our respective markets,” said Alan Baratz, senior vice president, Avaya and president, Avaya Global Communications Solutions. “Now, the two companies will work together, striving to improve collaboration and customer service by federating Avaya and Skype solutions for a common user experience that delivers unique benefits for businesses and their customers who are Skype users.”

“Our relationship with Avaya is expected to expand the footprint for Skype Connect into more enterprises in the U.S. market, while allowing us to help Avaya’s customers benefit from Skype’s cost savings and access to Skype’s global user base,” said David Gurle, vice president and general manager of Skype for Business. “We believe our integrated solution in the second half of 2011 is expected to offer the benefits of Skype to a growing number of businesses and open up new ways for people to communicate and collaborate.”

While there have been reports that News Corp. is selling off its advertising unit, Fox Audience Network, the company has actually been in talks with a variety of private equity firms about spinning it off and selling only a 20 to 30 percent chunk of it.

Such a deal might not happen, of course, but the strategy behind this approach is related to a desire to create a strong consortium of advertising networks to fight the growing power of Google in the race to match display ad buyers with display ad sellers.

The worry: If Google (GOOG) dominates that business in the same way it dominates search, it’s game over.

The strategy is being spearheaded by News Corp. (NWS) digital head Jon Miller, who has played a role in a variety of moves by the media giant to thwart Google in the content space.

Also involved is Adam Bain, who runs FAN and who would be CEO of the potentially independent unit. The well-regarded exec has been of interest to a number of other companies of late, so a new company might also be a way to keep him in place.

Sources said Miller began to get some incoming investor interest in buying FAN, which has morphed into the current talks.

FAN sells ads for MySpace and other News Corp. sites, as well as some third-party partners. It is in the Top 10 of ad networks, with 147.6 million unique monthly visitors.

Under one possible scenario, which values FAN at about $150 million, a private-equity player–such as Silver Lake Partners–would own a piece but also guarantee a certain amount of additional funding to spur growth.

The goal here is to take on Google and its ad-buying power either by rolling up ad networks or exchanges or by “federating” them–pulling them into an alliance.

Critically important to such an ambitious plan by News Corp. is cooperation from at least one of the trio of big of ad networks at Microsoft (MSFT), Yahoo (YHOO) and AOL (AOL).

In addition, other ad networks could be part of the group, such as OpenX, which is strong in Europe. Interestingly, Miller is the chairman of Los Angeles-based OpenX.

There is, of course, a mass of onerous logistical issues with such a scheme, including a variety of technical differences among ad exchanges and the need for cooperation among many different companies.

“We would not want this to be ad confederation light,” said a source at one major player in the space. “Because then it’s worse than working alone.”

In addition, not everyone is worried about Google–despite its acquisition of DoubleClick–taking over the display network space as easily as it took over the search market. Currently, while AOL has the top spot, there is no dominant player akin to Google’s overwhelming position in the search market.

News Corp. declined to comment about its plans for FAN.

(Full disclosure: News Corp. owns Dow Jones, which owns this Web site.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To each his own, said Andreessen!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The legal high jinks in the contentious battle over the fate of Skype got worse this afternoon, as former Joost CEO Michelangelo Volpi and Index Ventures filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the founders of Skype–Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis, via Joost and Joltid–against them.

It’s yet another chess move among a group of well-known tech players, who used to work together closely and are now at odds.

In a filing in the U.S. District Court in Delaware, Volpi and the London-based Index–where Volpi now works–noted, referring to a bid Zennström and Friis made to regain control of Skype, which they sold to eBay (EBAY) years ago:

“Instead of accepting the fact that their bid failed in the marketplace, Friis and Zennström are now using inflammatory and highly-charged litigation–through companies that have no relationship to the Skype purchase–to try to achieve their personal business goals.”

A spokesman for Joost and Joltid did not agree with Volpi’s assessment:

“Mr. Volpi’s latest motion appears to have been prepared prior to Defendants receiving Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which is filled with evidence supporting Plaintiffs’ claims. In light of this strong showing of substantive evidence, much of it from Mr. Volpi’s own correspondence, there is no basis for Mr. Volpi’s assertion that Plaintiffs have somehow failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”

Index was a small player within a group that won Skype, putting in $75 million, in a $2 billion deal that is set to close in the next few weeks.

The motion to dismiss the filing is not surprising given that Joost and Joltid filed a motion for preliminary injunction against Volpi and Index yesterday.

They are asking that he not use knowledge or confidential information he got at the video start-up in current dealings with Skype.

To complicate things further, the innovative and entrepreneurial pair also own a company called Joltid, which has licensed key technology for Skype to eBay.

Joltid and eBay have already been fighting in court over that agreement, bickering back and forth about whether eBay violated the terms of that deal or not.

Via Joltid, Zennström and Friis also filed suit again against Skype and its owner, eBay, for copyright violations in the U.S.

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

And both Joltid and Joost have also sued Volpi personally, as well as Index, making serious allegations about his behavior as Joost CEO.

Here are several key legal filings to peruse, for all you “Law & Order” types:

Motion to Dismiss _00302105_ –

Opposition to Motion For Expedition _00302104_ –

Volpi Opening Brief 10.15.09 _00302101_ –

Perhaps the sides in the ever-escalating war over the Skype deal will work out their differences and settle–which is what should and probably will eventually happen after everyone realizes how stupid all this noisy legal wrangling over the Internet telephony giant is.

But that day is decidedly not today, given a pair of recent PR hires by parties involved.

The founders of Skype, via the two tech companies they control, Joost and Joltid, have hired Sitrick & Company, headquartered in Los Angeles, while Index Ventures has tapped Joele Frank, Wilkinson Brimmer Katcher, based in New York.

Both strategic communications and public relations firms are well known for employing some very sharp elbows and extremely tough talk when it is time for some creative corporate crisis management.

And both are familiar with tech issues, having worked on contentious issues related to companies such as Microsoft (MSFT), Yahoo (YHOO), CBS (CBS) online unit CNET, and others.

And there is plenty of bad blood to work with here.

Yesterday, in yet another legal volley, Joost and Joltid filed a motion for preliminary injunction against former Joost CEO Michelangelo Volpi and Index Ventures, where Volpi now works as a partner.

They are asking that he not use knowledge or confidential information he got at the video start-up in current dealings with Skype.

Legal attacks have become the negotiating tool of choice from the founders of Skype, Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis, who were on the losing side of the $2 billion deal to buy the Internet telephony giant from eBay (EBAY).

Volpi is now a partner at London-based Index, which was one of the smaller players on the winning side of the bid, putting up $75 million.

To complicate things further, the innovative and entrepreneurial pair also own a company called Joltid, which has licensed key technology for Skype to eBay.

Joltid and eBay have already been fighting in court over that agreement, bickering back and forth about whether eBay violated the terms of that deal or not.

Via Joltid, Zennström and Friis also filed suit again against Skype and its owner, eBay, for copyright violations in the U.S.

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

And both Joltid and Joost have also sued Volpi personally, as well as Index, making serious allegations about his behavior as Joost CEO.

This kind of mud-slinging could get even worse with the hiring of big PR firms.

Along with Frank and Sitrick, by the way, Silver Lake–which is the big player on the winning side–has hired Edelman’s crisis and issues management team.

Interestingly, several sources said, the various players have also been engaged in settlement talks, even as the lawsuits have piled up.

Coming to some agreement is clearly the best outcome, although it does not appear that the spate of lawsuits has yet derailed the eBay deal with the Silver Lake-led group, which could even close in the next several weeks.

“Everyone should be thinking ahead of the headlights,” said one source. “But right now, it seems to be all about emotions.”

Joost and Joltid filed a motion for preliminary injunction against former Joost CEO Michelangelo Volpi and Index Ventures, where Volpi now works as a partner, asking that he not use knowledge or confidential information he got at the video start-up in current dealings with Skype.

The move is yet another legal attack from the founders of Skype, who were on the losing side of the $2 billion deal to buy the Internet telephony giant from eBay (EBAY).

Opening the “Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction,” which is shown below and is full of tough allegations about Volpi’s misbehavior:

“This action arises out of the acts of a faithless fiduciary, defendant Michelangelo Volpi, who, despite being the chief executive and Chairman of Joost, embarked on a systematic scheme to breach his fiduciary duties and promote his own self-aggrandizing campaign to become the next chairman of internet telephony leader Skype Inc.”

Volpi, who declined comment for now, was CEO of Joost, arriving at the much-hyped online video start-up to great fanfare in mid-2007.

But the London-based Joost never quite caught fire and began layoffs and contraction this summer.

As part of that development, Volpi then went to Index Ventures, a venture firm also based in London.

And, in one of Volpi’s first deals, Index was one of the smaller players on the winning side of the bid to buy Skype, putting up $75 million.

But also vying for the prize were the Internet telephony service’s founders, Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis, who had hooked up with a group of private equity investors.

To complicate things further, the innovative and entrepreneurial pair also own a company called Joltid, which has licensed key technology for Skype to eBay.

Joltid and eBay have been fighting in court over that agreement, bickering back and forth about whether eBay violated the terms of that deal or not.

Via Joltid, Zennström and Friis also filed suit again against Skype and its owner, eBay, for copyright violations in the U.S.

For good measure, they also added the winning buyout group, including Index, Silver Lake Partners, Andreessen Horowitz and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.

And both Joltid and Joost–aka Zennström and Friis–also sued Volpi personally, as well as Index again.

They allege tech skullduggery on Volpi’s part, in which he used confidential information he learned at Joost to thwart Joltid.

UPDATE: Here is the press release, with the official filing below:

Joost and Joltid File Motion for Preliminary Injunction Against Michelangelo Volpi

And Index Ventures Management, Seeking to Prevent Their Use of Confidential Information In Connection With the Acquisition or Management of Skype

Wilmington, DE (Oct. 14, 2009)–Joost US, Inc., its indirect parent company Joost N.V., and Joltid Limited today filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction against Michelangelo Volpi and Index Ventures Management in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. In support of the Motion, the plaintiffs also filed a Memorandum of Points and Authorities containing facts and legal arguments, witness declarations and other evidence.

The Motion for Preliminary Injunction asks the Court to enjoin Index and Volpi from using any of Joost’s and Joltid’s confidential information regarding (among other things) the Global Index Software, the technology developed and owned by Joltid that provides the peer-to-peer capability embedded in the Skype program. The Motion also asks the Court to enjoin the defendants from: (i) using the confidential information in connection with the operation or strategic planning of Skype; (ii) communicating such information to other parties in the “Buyout Group” that has made a bid to acquire Skype from eBay Inc.; (iii) soliciting employees of Joost and Joltid with offers to join Skype; (iv) having communications with current or former employees of Joost or Joltid regarding the companies’ confidential information; and (v) further participating in the Skype acquisition or assuming any position with Skype until a final adjudication of the merits of the case.

The Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and supporting declarations are available on the internet at https://www.lexisnexis.com/fileandserve. The case name is Joost US Inc. et al v. Volpi et al and the Case Number is 1:09-cv-708.

The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the defendants on September 18, 2009, alleging breach of fiduciary duty against Volpi, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against Index, interference with prospective business advantage, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract against Index, breach of confidence, and civil conspiracy. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction seeks interim relief until the lawsuit can be completed.

And here is the key filing, one of 10 in the case:

PI Brief – PUBLIC –

Is it just me or is it completely ironic that a pair of European entrepreneurs kept out of the United States due to tantrum lawsuits from the music industry are stamping their own legal feet like two ill-tempered toddlers of late?

That would be Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis, who today filed yet another lawsuit in their seemingly never-ending quest to win in court what they couldn’t in business dealmaking.

Today, via a new lawsuit, they are following through on their recent attempt to smear former Joost CEO Michelangelo Volpi.

Zennström and Friis co-founded Joost, you see, and last week were part of dumping him as a director and as its chairman, a job Volpi had retained when he left his top job at Joost to join Index Ventures in July.

Not satisfied with that, Joost also said then in an astonishing statement: “The company and its board of directors is conducting an investigation into Mr. Volpi’s actions during his tenure as CEO and as chairman.”

Of course, it is all part of the pair being on the very-sore-losing side of the $2 billion deal to buy Skype from eBay (EBAY).

Zennström and Friis got very rich selling the Internet telephony service to eBay in 2005.

This year, they turned around and tried to buy it back, hooking up with a group of private-equity investors.

Both Google (GOOG) and Microsoft (MSFT) also considered bids, and dropped out for various reasons.

And so did Volpi, in one of his first deals at Index–and the London-based venture firm was one of the smaller players on the winning side of the deal to buy Skype, putting up $75 million.

To complicate things further, Zennström and Friis also own a company called Joltid, which has licensed key technology for Skype to eBay.

Joltid and eBay have already been fighting in a British court over that agreement, bickering back and forth about whether eBay violated the terms of that deal or not.

Earlier this week, via Joltid, Zennström and Friis also filed suit again against Skype and its owner, eBay, for copyright violations in the U.S.

For good measure, they also added the winning buyout group, including Silver Lake Partners, Index, Andreessen Horowitz and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.

Did I forget to mention that lawsuit-happy Zennström and Friis also sued the investment banker who represented them in the original Skype sale?

So, it comes as no shock that both Joltid and Joost–aka Zennström and Friis–announced yesterday that they are suing Volpi personally, as well as Index again.

They allege tech skullduggery on Volpi’s part, in which he used confidential information he learned at Joost to thwart Joltid.

Evidence and proof–on first blush–seem to have little to do with this and ire at losing a deal and trying to gain leverage for a settlement seem to be the true game.

And what their next legal move might be is anybody’s guess.

But you get the idea here, don’t you?

In the ongoing game of musical chairs among top managers at Internet companies, former Yahoo exec Brad Garlinghouse–famous for his controversial “Peanut Butter Manifesto,” which correctly chided the Internet giant for becoming so lugubrious several years ago–is taking a job at AOL very similar to the one he left at Yahoo last year.

Garlinghouse, 38, has been named president of Internet and mobile communications at AOL, putting him in charge of the New York-based Time Warner (TWX) online unit’s powerful email and instant-messaging properties, including ICQ and AIM.

He has only been in talks with AOL–which used Spencer Stuart’s Internet-top-exec-finder-in-chief Jim Citrin–for a few weeks, in a deal that came together quickly, he and the company said.

Garlinghouse, a longtime Web entrepreneur and exec, had reportedly been considering a number of start-up and venture-related jobs since he left Yahoo last summer after six years there.

Sources said he was seriously considering becoming the CEO of a mobile firm.

He was most recently at Silver Lake Partners, as an “in-house senior advisor,” the private equity firm that recently bought the Skype Internet telephony firm for $1.9 billion. Garlinghouse also reportedly helped work on that deal.

“It’s really exciting to be to able to rebuild and revitalize an industry giant,” said Garlinghouse in an interview with BoomTown earlier today. “I make no bones that these [properties] are in need of that…but there is also a huge opportunity to do something cool.”

Garlinghouse has to hurry. Despite being among the top communications players online–a group that also includes Yahoo (YHOO) and Microsoft (MSFT) and, more recently, Google (GOOG)–AOL has lost relevance with key audiences, even as social networking properties like Facebook and the microblogging service, Twitter, have innovated in the communications space.

The hiring of Garlinghouse, well known in Silicon Valley circles, is meant to counter that.

He will head up AOL’s operations from its Mountain View, Calif., campus–which is also the former HQ of AOL-acquired Netscape Communications–where, said AOL CEO Tim Armstrong, Garlinghouse will “be CEO of Silicon Valley for us.”

Between all its various properties, AOL has several hundred employees in the Northern California area.

Armstrong said AOL–which was founded 25 years ago on the East Coast and has tried and failed many times to get a true foothold in the West–thinks having an important player at the center of the tech industry is critical as it moves to spin off as an independent company by the end of the year.

“We have a triple play in getting a great executive, who is a master in the communications on the Web and who is well known out there,” said Armstrong. “Brad is our senior AOL manager there.”

Along with running all of AOL’s communications properties, Garlinghouse will inherit some of its community properties, although AOL’s Bebo social networking unit–now considered to be an overpriced acquisition error–now resides in its ventures unit, headed by Jon Brod.

Garlinghouse will also be aiding Brod, said Armstrong, with AOL on the lookout for acquisition opportunities in communications and other arenas.

While Garlinghouse declined to be specific about what would pique his buying interest, he was responsible for such big Yahoo deals as its $350 million purchase of Zimbra in the fall of 2007.

He was also key to bringing both Oddpost, which is at the heart of Yahoo’s email offering, and the popular Flickr photosharing service to Yahoo.

Garlinghouse said he has admired what Twitter and Facebook have done, but that they were not destroying traditional online communications, pioneered by AOL, as some assert.

“It’s a vibrant segment and this just means there are a lot of opportunities to enable integration,” he said. “I think of it as an expansion of online communications and I hope AOL can do more collaboration and partnerships.”

Garlinghouse also has to watch AOL’s basic products like email, which was recently passed by Google’s Gmail as the No. 3 email service in the U.S. Yahoo Mail is the top email, while Microsoft’s Hotmail is second.

How much Garlinghouse can do will depend on the future financial strength of AOL. Its advertising business has been hit hard in the econalpyse, with hopes it will return before its money-generating access business continues its slow decline.

Armstrong is now in the midst of looking over AOL’s cost structure and employee base, which most expect will eventually result in another round of layoffs and cuts.

He has been busy creating a different strategy for the company since he arrived earlier this year, as well as hiring (and firing) top execs to create a new management structure.

Now, that includes Garlinghouse.

So, for a look-see at AOL’s latest talent acquisition, here’s a video interview I did with him, just after Yahoo bought Zimbra:

And here’s the full press release from AOL about the hiring of Garlinghouse:

AOL NAMES BRAD GARLINGHOUSE AS PRESIDENT, INTERNET AND MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS

NEW YORK, N.Y.–September 8, 2009–AOL today named Brad Garlinghouse as President of Internet and Mobile Communications, spearheading AOL’s global efforts to expand the reach of its e-mail and instant messaging. Garlinghouse will also take on an expanded leadership position for the company, heading up AOL’s Silicon Valley operations from its Mountain View campus and serving as the West Coast lead for AOL Ventures, the company’s venture capital arm headed globally by Jon Brod. Garlinghouse was most recently at Silver Lake Partners as an in-house Senior Advisor.

Prior to Silver Lake, Garlinghouse spent nearly six years at Yahoo!, where he led that company’s communications and community products. Garlinghouse will report directly to AOL’s Chairman and CEO Tim Armstrong.

” Brad Garlinghouse is an all-star in the Internet industry with an unparalleled background and proven track record, having led Yahoo’s communications products to unprecedented growth,” said Armstrong. “In addition to leading our efforts to grow our communications products, Brad will be bringing his global leadership and business experience as a key member of our company’s executive leadership team. He will also be a major force for AOL in Silicon Valley, working to expand our presence there and in the tech community in general. We’re delighted to have Brad on board and know he’ll do great things for AOL.”

“It’s a tremendous opportunity to join AOL at this pivotal moment in its history,” Garlinghouse said. “Tim has set out a clear strategy and vision for where he is taking this company as it becomes independent again. I’m looking forward to working with him and the rest of the team to realize that vision.”

Armstrong, who joined AOL in April, identified Communications as one of the five key areas of strategic focus for AOL after an extensive 100-day review of the company’s business. Other focus areas include Content, Advertising, Local & Mapping and AOL Ventures.

Garlinghouse spent nearly six years at Yahoo! where he most recently served as SVP of Communications and Communities. Prior to that he served as SVP of Communications, Communities and Front Doors, which included the Yahoo! home page. He came to Yahoo in 2003 as VP, Communication Products. During his time there, Yahoo! Mail went from No. 3 to leading all competitors by a wide margin, and the company’s instant messaging service rose to become the leader in that market as well. Garlinghouse also oversaw the company’s Flickr photo-sharing service and Yahoo! Groups.

Prior to Yahoo!, Garlinghouse was CEO of Dialpad.com Inc., responsible for all aspects of the company’s operations, finance, sales and marketing. He was also General Partner at @Ventures, Category Manager of Media Development for the @Home Network, Inc., and Manager at SBC Communications.

Garlinghouse, 38, received his BA in economics from the University of Kansas and his MBA from Harvard Business School.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt gave what he just had to know would be a much quoted comment to the Nikkei today, explicitly saying that the company had “begun seriously looking into acquisitions again.”

Music to the beleaguered mergers and acquisitions market, to be sure, especially after a recent uptick from other big companies pulling out their wallets again as the impact of the econalypse subsides.

According to sources, Google (GOOG) is working on at least a half-dozen acquisition deals, most of which are small start-ups in the online advertising and cloud computing arenas.

That would be welcome news for many.

That’s because, as The Wall Street Journal noted in a piece today, “August was shaping up to be the worst month for deal making since 1995, according to data provider Dealogic” (see the chart).

That was, until Disney (DIS) bought Marvel for $4 billion, in a deal announced Monday.

Then yesterday, eBay (EBAY) traded 65 percent of its Skype Internet telephony unit to a group of free-spending private investors, led by Silver Lake Partners, for $1.9 billion.

While eye-popping numbers like that make dealmakers smile, most think it is in the spate of smaller venture-backed companies that more of the action will happen, with big companies like Google, Microsoft (MSFT), Apple (AAPL) and even Yahoo (YHOO) as predators.

Many of these were funded in the Web 2.0 boom and have done well enough, but are figuring out that a link with a larger fish will likely make for a better outcome, along with filling in tech and product gaps at the giants.

Think about Facebook’s $50 million acquisition of social networking site FriendFeed recently and you have the right idea.

According to more than a half-dozen Silicon Valley VCs I have spoken to this week, this is the likeliest kind of exit for a large group of their portfolio companies.

Thus, they are putting on their finest and placing themselves on display in the store window, offering talent and innovation.

“We all realize that a lot of these companies are not going to be independent, so we’re all trying to figure out where they best fit in,” said one VC. “We essentially did business development for a lot of the large companies.”

Thus, here are some companies whose names have been bandied about of late by M&A types who say they are more likely candidates for sale:

Veoh, the Web video portal that MediaMemo wrote about in July, has reportedly been searching for a home for a while now as it struggles in a costly space dominated by giants like YouTube and Hulu.

That goes for many other similar video efforts, such as Joost, Metacafe and Dailymotion, all of which have been trying to gain traction.

There is also likely to be a shakeout in the gaming and “guy” content space, which has also seen a lot of funding in the last several years and less monetary success.

Some possible names here include: Xfire, a gaming instant-messaging company Viacom (VIA) bought a couple years ago for $100 million; Giant Realm, a 20-something guy site funded by Comcast (CMCSA) and others; and UGO, Hearst’s version of a 20-something guy site.

Probably, given the need to focus on monetization, the most active M&A space will be in online advertising.

Sources said Google, for example, has been interested in companies such as Teracent, a dynamic ad-serving and optimization start-up in San Mateo.

There are lots of names in this general arena to pick from, from Tumri to Quantcast to AdMob to the Rubicon Project, not all of which are for sale, but might be for the right price.

Lastly, there is the smart phone and telecom space, where there might be some of the bigger deals.

While Palm (PALM) has been trying mightily to gain traction with its Pre offering, many think that if it does not go as well as hoped, the company will be an acquisition target eventually for giant companies like Nokia (NOK).

While many think Microsoft could also be a buyer of Palm, given the lackluster performance of its Windows Mobile devices, it might be more attuned to a much bigger catch: Research in Motion (RIMM) and its business-oriented BlackBerry empire.

Such a massive acquisition–most of those I bounced that idea off agreed–would be an uphill battle, but it would be perhaps the best fish story ever.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Now, certainly you can see why people would fantasize about a Seagate LBO; the company was taken private in 2000 in a highly profitable buyout by Silver Lake Partners; the theory would be, well, why not give it one more go-round.

Read the rest of this post