The deal is the latest in a string of pacts that are fast transforming Netflix into a true Web-based movie channel. With streaming rights to films from Paramount, Lionsgate, Sony, Disney and MGM studios, and a new streaming-only service priced at $7.99 a month, the company is increasingly becoming more competitive with the cable incumbents.

Federated Media, the San Francisco-based advertising and publishing network, has acquired BigTent, a platform hosting more than 15,000 communities, mostly made up of parenting groups, especially moms.

Financial terms of the deal with BigTent, also located in San Francisco, were not disclosed.

BigTent has raised $5 million in venture funding from Menlo Ventures and Mohr Davidow Ventures.

In an interview earlier today, FM CEO John Battelle said the move was to further strengthen its tools for both the advertisers and publishers it serves, especially to create better “content conversations.”

Along with leveraging BigTent’s members by linking top brands with the parenting community, the platform could be used by publishers to reach their bases.

This is the second acquisition for FM within several months. In August, it acquired semantic search start-up TextDigger, a platform that allows content owners to include semantic indexing in search.

Battelle said that the additions to FM’s offerings are moving it toward helping content makers and advertisers create more relevancy, well beyond simply serving ads.

“People might look at us as a school of fish, but suddenly realize we are a shark,” said Battelle. “We want to create meaningful interactions on the independent Web.”

The shark metaphor scares me a bit, but it will be interesting to see what FM chomps up next.

Here is the official press release from FM:

Federated Media Publishing Acquires BigTent Platform for Groups

SAN FRANCISCO –Federated Media Publishing (FM), a next-generation media company, today announced the acquisition of BigTent, the leading platform for trusted parenting groups.

More than 8 million parents engage deeply with FM authors, the best independent voices on the Web. Millions more rely on BigTent to stay connected with local school, community and shared-interest groups.

“The combination of our two audiences gives marketers a powerful new way to reach the most valuable consumers online,” said Deanna Brown, President and Chief Operating Officer of FM. “Moms are busy, so they’re picky about where they spend their online time. They read high-quality writing from the best bloggers and they engage with each other in the most useful communities.”

BigTent’s thousands of groups continue to function as they always have, with the same great customer service, and the platform continues to welcome new groups. Each group has its own private, secure social networking environment and a set of tools that save precious time and enrich communities.

“BigTent groups are the social fabric of their communities, and we’re thrilled by the new and better ways we’ll now be able to serve them,” said Laney Whitcanack, the co-founder of BigTent, who is now Chief Community Officer at FM. “With FM, we have a partner who values their voice and is committed to their ongoing support and growth. Working together, we’ll continue to build authentic and meaningful opportunities for major brands to engage with these trusted groups.”

The purchase of BigTent follows FM’s recent expansion of its ability to reach parents online through a partnership with the Clever Girls Collective and the increase in its technical capabilities with the acquisition of semantic-search technology from TextDigger.

LivingSocial, the No. 2 social local deals start-up, announced today that it has bought Urban Escapes, a social adventure company.

Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

LivingSocial now has about 10 million subscribers to its discount offers online, where it competes head-to-head with Groupon.

Both companies have been garnering huge fundings, which is being used in a race for dominance in the space.

After the recent $135 million funding of Groupon that valued the Chicago-based company at upward of an eye-popping $1 billion, LivingSocial announced to that it had raised a more modest $14 million in a Series C round.

The Washington, D.C. start-up had raised $25 million in a Series B venture financing only a month before that. And it raised $10 million on top of that since 2008.

In addition, big companies have become focused on the fast-growing arena, such as recent acquisition interest from Yahoo in Groupon.

Here is the official press release about the latest LivingSocial deal:

LivingSocial Redefines Social Adventure with Acquisition of Urban Escapes

Unique, Exclusive Experiences Now Offered to LivingSocial’s Network of 10 Million Subscribers

Washington, D.C.–October 19, 2010–Leading social shopping site LivingSocial (www.livingsocial.com) today announced the acquisition of social adventure company Urban Escapes. LivingSocial will now be able to exclusively offer its 10 million subscribers-strong worldwide community a host of diverse, fun and unique adventures and experiences, produced by a team of on-the-ground experts.

“By working closely with merchants in all of our markets, LivingSocial has helped thousands of people across the country experience fun and exciting things to do in their neighborhood,” said Tim O’Shaughnessy, CEO and Co-Founder of LivingSocial. “With the acquisition of Urban Escapes, we will now have the ability to help curate some amazing experiences and adventures exclusively for our members.”

From “Zen Escape Yoga Hikes” to “Boulder and Brew Tours™,” Urban Escapes redefines social adventure, and its unique itineraries promote a fun and active lifestyle and a chance to escape the day-to-day rat race. Urban Escapes staff will work directly with LivingSocial representatives in five introductory markets designing and creating one-of-a-kind experiences and adventures for LivingSocial customers.

“People who use LivingSocial are already looking for fun, new things to do in the area they live or where they’re visiting,” said Maia Josebachvili, founder and president of Urban Escapes. “We’re passionate about organizing experiences you could never arrange on your own and this acquisition is the perfect opportunity for us to expand these completely unique, guided experiences around the globe.”

As the premiere local activity discovery engine, LivingSocial lets anyone find restaurants, shops, activities and services popular in their area at a savings of 50% to 70%. Handpicked adventures from Urban Escapes offer unique adventures and experiences at affordable prices to the LivingSocial community.

Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

Just how, exactly, RIM (RIMM) reached compliance isn’t exactly clear. The company refuses to discuss its deal with the UAE, claiming its terms are confidential. But according to the TRA, it’s the result of “positive engagement and collaboration” with the company, so my guess is it got what it wanted: An arrangement that will give it access to BlackBerry data.

Meanwhile, RIM’s services will continue uninterrupted as it prepares for the UAE launch of the Torch and Curve model in the weeks ahead.

Zynga announced another small acquisition today, as it continues to vacuum up small independent online game developers across the U.S. and internationally.

This time it’s Dallas-based Bonfire Studios, which the San Francisco-based social gaming start-up said would now be called Zynga Dallas.

Bonfire makes titles for the PC and Xbox 360, such as “Age of Empires,” “Age of Mythology” and “Halo Wars.”

Zynga said Bonfire’s three founders–David Rippy, Bill Jackson and Scott Winsett, will become GM, creative director and senior art director, respectively, of Zynga Dallas.

Zynga’s other recent purchases include Challenge Games, which is based in Austin, as well as several others abroad.

Financial terms of the deal were not released by Zynga.

That’s a pretty significant change for the company, which has previously allowed anyone to do just about anything with its data, without asking for a cent.

But that’s over, based on the new terms of service the company released today. The relevant excerpt:

In cases where Twitter content is the basis (in whole or in part) of the advertising sale, we require you to compensate us (recoupable against any fees payable to Twitter for data licensing).

That’s potentially a big deal. It’s also quite vague. And after talking to Twitter COO Dick Costolo this afternoon, I’m pretty sure that vagueness is intentional. Because I’m not sure Twitter knows exactly how it wants to proceed.

But I did extract some specifics from Costolo:

• Twitter is only focused on sites and services that sell ads against its stream. So if your service doesn’t generate revenue, or does so using something other than ads (i.e., subscriptions, analytics packages, etc.), you’re fine.
• If you do have to pay up, there are a couple of different ways to do it: You could cut Twitter in via a revenue split or agree to license its data stream, which has generally been free up until now. Or you could agree to use Twitter’s own “Promoted Tweets” ad service. Or some combination of the above.
• Costolo says the company hasn’t established a minimum fee, revenue split or another metric for payments. So a lot of this is going to get hammered out case by case.

Okay. But who, exactly, is going to have to pay up? Twitter’s terms aren’t clear, and while I went around and around with Costolo about this over the phone, I’m still not sure. Because I don’t think Twitter is sure.

Start with the easy stuff: If there’s nothing else in your service beyond tweets and you’re selling ads against those tweets, you could be paying.

“When we’re talking about cases where Twitter is clearly a key component of how a page is monetized, we need to have a commercial relationship,” Costolo said.

That sure sounds like TweetUp, the new “AdSense for Tweets” product that launched today, despite what CEO Bill Gross told me this morning. And it doesn’t sound like Muck Rack, a Twitter aggregation site owned by Sawhorse Media–because there aren’t any ads on Muck Rack. But if owner Greg Galant decided to start running Google (GOOG) AdSense ads on his pages, he might end up paying.

Except that Twitter says it’s not looking to find all the developers and publishers out there selling ads against the Twitter stream and tax them. Size matters, for one thing.

“We’re not trying to prevent people from building businesses,” says Tony Wang, a Twitter business development executive who joined my call with Costolo today. “We’re saying if there’s this thing you’re doing, and you’re selling ads against it, and it’s really big, we want to participate in that.”

So is Twitter only interested in really big publishers who use Twitter? Not necessarily. I asked Costolo about the Huffington Post, which has prominently embraced Twitter and uses it frequently to fill out its pages. Like this Twitter widget under a grisly story about a gored bullfighter (careful!).

That’s probably fine, Costolo said. But what about Huffpo’s “Twitter editions,” which are primarily made up of tweets? I’ve asked Costolo about those in a follow-up email, but haven’t heard back yet. My gut: He’s not sure yet. Which is going to make for lots of interesting conversations in the coming weeks and months.

UPDATE: Here’s Costolo’s response, via e-mail, on the Huffpo question. Not surprisingly, he heaps praise on a big Web site that helps Twitter increase its distribution. Though note he does mention plans to “monetize…together”:

HuffPo’s Twitter Edition pages are an awesome example of why those guys are one of our most innovative partners. We actively support and encourage those efforts, and look forward to working with them to monetize these opportunities together. In fact, I think they will play an important role in helping define smart approaches to advertising around Twitter-driven content.

It’s reasonable enough for Twitter to start trying to make money via companies that are making money via Twitter–it’s a move many outsiders have been calling for the company to make for some time. But it wouldn’t be Twitter if this was a straightforward process. Get ready for a bumpy ride.

UPDATE 2: After a day of discussion, Twitter has tweaked its language in its terms of service, swapping out  “In cases where Twitter content is the basis (in whole or in part) of the advertising sale” with “In cases where Twitter content is the primary basis of the advertising sale”.

What does that mean? Here’s Costolo, via email: “The policy remains the same — if Twitter content is the primary basis of the advertising sale, we require a commercial relationship. It’s important to note that just because there is Twitter content on a site, for example a Twitter widget, that does not mean we will require a commercial relationship. We encourage folks to find innovative ways to display Twitter content, and we aren’t interested in tracking down each and every implementation in order to be compensated.”

Here’s

That’s going to start changing, Google announced this morning. The company is laying out the revenue splits for both its content and search partners: Publishers will receive 68 percent and 51 percent of revenue, respectively. And Google says it will start providing more detailed accounting to publishers going forward.

Plenty of caveats here: The splits don’t apply to all the AdSense products Google offers (games, for instance, are not included). They don’t apply to big publishers, who get to negotiate their own terms with Google (GOOG). And Google isn’t promising to maintain the splits indefinitely.

But some transparency is better than no transparency. And Google feels confident it won’t lose any accounts in the process. But just in case you were considering shopping around:

When considering different monetization options, we encourage you to focus on the total revenue generated from your site, rather than just revenue share, which can be misleading. For example, you would receive $68 with AdSense for content for $100 worth of advertising that appeared on your site. If another ad network offers an 80% revenue share, but is only able to collect $50 from ads served on your site, you would earn $40. In this case, a higher revenue share wouldn’t make up for the lower revenue yield of the other ad network.

That’s a gauntlet thrown down to rival ad networks: Just to try to beat us. Anyone want to take the bait?

Yahoo, in a clear attempt to get deep into the social content space and better compete with both AOL and Demand Media, announced the acquisition of Associated Content.

Sources close to the situation said the price was $90 million in cash, which is a solid outcome for Associated Content, a start-up that found itself in an increasingly crowded space for cheaper content.

There are no earn-outs and no restrictions, sources added.

Yahoo (YHOO) declined to provide the financial terms of the deal and said it expected to complete this acquisition in the third quarter of 2010.

In the deal, which the pair have been talking about for some time, the code name for the New York- and Denver-based company was Atlantic.

And, indeed, Yahoo is aiming to garner a massive sea of content by buying the company, which said it has 380,000 contributors and many millions of pieces of content.

It has about 16 million unique monthly visitors, according to recent surveys, and has signed several distribution deals with major media partners.

“This is really about our commitment to providing high-quality content that is relevant to users and also advertisers,” said David Ko, who heads Yahoo’s media efforts, in an interview with BoomTown just before the deal was announced.

For Associated, said founder Luke Beatty, it was a need to get access to Yahoo’s huge pool of consumers for its content, provided by armies of freelancers. It was founded in 2004, he noted, with the tagline: “The People’s Media Company.”

“We invented the category, thinking about this idea that there should be a democratization of content,” he said. “Being part of Yahoo increases our scale to a completely different level.”

Ko said Associated Content was “far superior than any competitor.”

It was a sentiment countered by Demand CEO and co-founder Richard Rosenblatt:

“The fact that Yahoo–which has historically sourced content from storied brands like Reuters, Associated Press and entertainment deals with Hollywood–is now ready to bring user-generated content to its advertisers is fascinating,” he wrote in an email to me. “Demand Media’s approach is certainly different than either AC, Yahoo or the combination. We think that our approach is differentiated due to our large professional content creator network, rigorous editorial processes, strong technologies and algorithms and distribution on a combination of owned and partner sites.”

Yahoo’s Ko also called Associated Content a “pioneer” in the space to make bank from crowd-sourced, search-optimized content efforts for media about more mundane topics like back pain.

And, indeed, that is true.

Yet Associated Content’s efforts have been overshadowed recently by those of Santa Monica, Calif.-based Demand Media, which is heading for an IPO at a multibillion-dollar valuation, as well as AOL (AOL), which has put a lot of muscle behind both its low-cost social content at its Seed unit and higher-priced premium content efforts.

As MediaMemo’s Peter Kafka wrote:

“Associated Content looks and acts a lot like Demand Media, the Santa Monica-based “content mill” that’s drawn a lot of attention in the last year or so–though both companies bristle when you compare the two. It’s also thematically related to AOL CEO Tim Armstrong’s push to automate the production of content at that company.”

And while Beatty had said Associated Content was not for sale, many other sources inside and outside the company said it has been shopping itself for a while now, including to both Demand and AOL, in fact.

It hired Allen & Co. earlier this year, after AOL talks went nowhere.

Ironically, Armstrong was an angel investor in Associated Content, which is also backed by Canaan Partners and SoftBank Capital. It had raised a total of $21.4 million.

Another irony: In the past, Yahoo has taken a look at acquisitions of both AOL and Demand, deeming both too pricey.

In addition, the relationship between Demand and Yahoo has gotten testy of late, with Demand poaching top exec talent from Yahoo, such as U.S. ad sales head Joanne Bradford, among others.

People close to Associated Content say it’s on a $15 million run rate, up from $4 million earlier in the year.

Still, settling in at Yahoo and for a solid price is a good outcome for Associated, whose staff will now be integrated with the Silicon Valley Internet giant.

“Combining our world-class editorial team with Associated Content’s makes this a game-changer,” said Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz in a statement. “Together, we’ll create more content around what we know our users care about, and open up new and creative avenues for advertisers to engage with consumers across our network. These are important aspects of building engaging consumer experiences on Yahoo!, and one of the reasons why we’re one of the most visited destinations online.”

Here is a video that Yahoo posted on its Yodel Anecdotal blog of Beatty (good lord, you really don’t need to kiss up to your new bosses with purple socks, Luke!):

And here is the official press release from Yahoo about the deal:

Yahoo! to Acquire Associated Content

Extending leadership in content with the addition of 380,000 contributors

Sunnyvale, Calif.–May 18, 2010–Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO) today announced it has signed a definitive agreement to acquire Associated Content Inc. This strategic move extends Yahoo’s ability to provide high quality, personally relevant content for the benefit of more than 600 million users as well as tens of thousands of advertisers. As Yahoo! enhances its social, mobile, local, and media offerings, the acquisition of Associated Content reinforces the company’s longstanding promise to offer the best of the Web–by combining Associated Content’s approximately 380,000 contributors who provide rich and varied content on a broad array of passion points, with Yahoo’s leadership in partnering with established content brands and the award-winning team of editors and experts from Yahoo!.

“Combining our world-class editorial team with Associated Content’s makes this a game-changer,” said Carol Bartz, CEO, Yahoo! Inc. “Together, we’ll create more content around what we know our users care about, and open up new and creative avenues for advertisers to engage with consumers across our network. These are important aspects of building engaging consumer experiences on Yahoo!, and one of the reasons why we’re one of the most visited destinations online.”

“The Associated Content team and our 380,000 contributors are looking forward to joining Yahoo! and to the opportunities that being part of a global Internet brand presents,” said Luke Beatty, Associated Content founder and president. “Combining our crowd sourced content with Yahoo!’s distribution, world class editorial team and online marketing leadership will accelerate our growth as we continue to leverage our best-of-breed platform to deliver high quality compelling content on more than 60,000 topics.”

For advertisers, this deal will expand Yahoo! into more topic areas and real-time content generation. The combination promises to offer advertisers even more opportunities to engage groups of passionate consumers in ways they will find uniquely appealing to their interests and tastes. Having insight into user intent through its leading search products enables Yahoo! to identify topics important to advertisers and users. Yahoo! plans to use Associated Content to create content around those topics and leverage Associated Content to contribute content to existing media properties. Associated Content also provides more opportunities for Yahoo! to partner and collaborate with publishers who can help the company shape the tremendous variety of content coming in, into something bespoke and even more engaging.

While current Associated Content content is U.S.-centric, Yahoo! expects to scale the platform globally.

Associated Content was founded by Luke Beatty in Denver, Colorado, in 2004. Associated Content receives more than 16 million unique users per month (comScore) and the editorial staff reviews more than 50,000 pieces of content per month, including articles, images, audio and video.

Yahoo! expects to complete this acquisition in the third quarter of 2010. Financial terms were not disclosed.

Terms of Nokia’s (NOK) acquisition, which is expected to close during the June quarter, were not disclosed.

Clearly, Google’s (GOOG) redirection of Google.cn to Google.hk and the implied reminder that Hong Kong is free and mainland China is not, did not go over well with Beijing.

Gang did not comment on the legality of Google’s new approach to China or explain how his country’s government will respond. But he did reiterate Beijing’s you-will-play-by-our-rules mandate to foreign business. Said Gang: “Any foreign company operating in China must abide by Chinese laws and regulations.”

Was he implying that China feels Google is violating its laws by offering an uncensored search service from Hong Kong? That’s not yet clear, though I’m sure it will become more so in the days ahead. Already, there are reports that Google searches for sensitive or banned terms conducted from China are returning error messages.

PREVIOUSLY:

• China: Google Broke Promise, Wrong to Stop Censoring
• Google Shutters Google.cn
• China to Google: Go Ahead and Leave, Ya Big Loser
• Report: Google Bailing on China in Early April
• Beijing to Google’s China Partners: Nice Site You Got There. Shame if Something Happened to It.
• China: We Are in Talks With Google. Also, We Are Not in Talks With Google.
• Chinese Scientists Recalibrate Google’s Evil Scale
• Chinese Schools Tied to Attacks on Google? Where’d You Read That, Mad Magazine?
• World War WAN: Google Hack Traced to Schools in China
• Nearly a Month After Debut, Google’s “New” Approach to China Still a Lot Like the Old One
• Google CEO: Ask Not What Google Can Do for China–Ask What China Can Do for Google
• China on “Google Farce”: Our Internet Is Open
• China to Google: No Worries, We Were Planning to Clone Those Android Phones Anyway
• U.S. State Department to Complain to China About Google Hack. Not That China’s Going to Listen.
• Microsoft: “Don’t Be Evil” Is Google’s Motto, Not Ours
• What’s the Chinese Word for Bing? Google Threatens to Leave China.

The acquisition is a savvy one for Yahoo (YHOO), which already has a strong sports content business and stands to benefit from the additional social networking and mobile integration that Citizen Sports offers.

Below, the official announcement:

Yahoo! to Acquire Citizen Sports

Strengthens Social Strategy by Combining the Power of the No. 1 Online Sports Destination with the Web’s Most Popular Social Sports Company

SUNNYVALE, Calif., Mar 17, 2010 –As part of its ongoing commitment to be the center of people’s online lives, Yahoo Inc. (NASDAQ:YHOO) today announced it has signed a definitive agreement to acquire Citizen Sports (http://www.citizensports.com), a company that brings the world of sports to fans’ favorite social networking sites and mobile devices through innovative applications. This acquisition will strengthen Yahoo!‘s social strategy of enriching, aggregating and distributing social content from across the entire Web, and offering a highly customizable social experience.

“Yahoo! is in a unique position to combine our deep expertise in content and aggregation technology to offer a highly personalized social experience,” said Bryan Lamkin, senior vice president, Consumer Products Group, Yahoo!. “Sports has been among the earliest online categories to experience rapid social proliferation, and the combination of Citizen Sports leading products with our world-class sports experience on Yahoo! Sports is a win-win for sports fans globally.”

Millions of people across the globe use Citizen Sports’ array of social and mobile products to play fantasy sports, fill out brackets, check live scores and read up-to-the minute news on sports including football, hockey, soccer, baseball, racing, rugby, hockey and cricket. Yahoo! Sports’ content will be integrated into these products, creating a seamless experience for sports fans wherever they are. On Yahoo! Sports, users will be able to broadcast their allegiances, create or join a conversation with friends and fans and cheer for their teams through Citizen Sports’ applications. This integration will further transform Yahoo! into a more personally relevant experience, drive deeper user engagement and create opportunities for advertisers to interact with audiences in new environments.

As the #1 destination for online Sports with more than 39 million monthly unique users in the U.S.*, Yahoo! Sports provides people with the most timely, relevant and comprehensive sports news, information and programming. Citizen Sports’ network of popular applications for Facebook, MySpace (NYSE: NWS), hi5, iPhone and Android span professional, college and high school sports.

“Citizen Sports was founded with the intent to enable fans to access news, scores and fantasy games on the platform of their choice,” said Mike Kerns, founder and CEO of Citizen Sports. “We look forward to becoming a part of Yahoo! and bringing our social experiences to their 600 million users around the globe.”

Citizen Sports was founded by Mike Kerns and Jeff Ma in 2004. Since then the company has brought together millions of sports fans from around the world to enjoy sports and connect with their friends. Citizen Sports is based in San Francisco.

Yahoo! expects to complete this acquisition in the second quarter of 2010. Financial terms were not disclosed.

No terms were announced, but given that Seattle-based Picnik is a 20-person, bootstrapped start-up, the reasonable guess is that this falls into the “acquhire” category for Google (GOOG), whereby the company is more interested in the team than the product itself.

This seems especially likely in this case because Picnik is, among other things, the default editor for Yahoo’s (YHOO) Flickr.

That doesn’t mean Google will shut the service down (a la reMail), but I do assume they have different ambitions for the team that built it.

Meanwhile, here’s an addition to the “this is what it looks like when Google buys your company” gallery we should be compiling (see: Appjet)–a video of what TechFlash’s John Cook says is Team Picnik’s celebration. Which is considerably milder than those crazy Canadian hockey players.

The point: So new entrepreneurs don’t waste time and money negotiating often unnecessarily complex legal papers.

Series Seed Documents was planning its announcement tonight, after briefing reporters. But BoomTown was alerted to the move by a tweet last week from Fenwick & West lawyer Wang that read: “Excited about launching Series Seed documents next week.”

Oops!

The Twitter post has since been taken down (but here is an image of it, below, natch!).

“Who even knew that a corporate attorney would have a Twitter account?” joked Marc Andreessen of Andreessen Horowitz in an interview this morning.

Actually, Wang (pictured here) is Twitter’s lawyer!

His practice, which focuses on representation of “emerging companies,” as noted on his Fenwick & West Web site, also includes Aardvark, Billshrink, Clicker, Facebook, Flixster and Widgetbox.

Andreessen Horowitz, which was the first to agree to use Series Seed Documents, will be joined by a spate of high-profile angel and early-stage investors.

The group includes SV Angel’s Ron Conway, First Round Capital, “micro-cap” investor Mike Maples, SoftTechVC’s Jeff Clavier, True Ventures, Polaris Ventures, Charles River Ventures and Harrison Metal.

“We want to make the process as transparent as possible, which is to say, we want to take all the mystery out it,” said Andreessen. “And it is online for everyone to understand.”

Of course, noted Andreessen, the price for the round is still open to negotiation, but wrangling over typically standard legal issues often hurts deals.

“The big reason we are doing it is that we think for these early stage round, bashing over these terms does damage only brings mistrust,” he said.

Andreessen noted that this template approach is only appropriate for small, early rounds of about $500,000 to $1 million.

“VCs who do angel rounds should be acting like a VC in a VC round and acting like an angel in an angel round,” he said. “The problems come when VCs act like VCs in angel rounds.”

Andreessen said using Series Seed Documents would cost start-ups about $7,000 compared with a low of $15,000 and up to $100,000 in many similar deals.

“It helps streamline the process and makes starting a company easier and more efficient,” said Conway of SV Angel, who is a well-known angel investor. “And cheaper–all in all, it is a benefit to both the entrepreneur and the investor.”

Requested after Nokia accused Apple of unfairly benefiting from its wireless technology, the investigation will seek to determine whether the Finnish cellphone giant has violated 13 Apple patents and tried to copy the iPhone to maintain its status in the industry. As with Nokia’s complaint against Apple, the stakes here are quite high: A ban on importation of the products found to contain infringing technology.

News of the ITC action, which is to be completed in 45 days, comes as Apple (AAPL) steps up its legal campaign against Nokia (NOK). Last Friday, the company lobbed another court filing at Nokia, this one accusing it of antitrust violations.

Nokia, says Apple, misled industry standard-setting groups into including its patented technologies in things like Wi-Fi and then charged excessive royalty fees to license them. Apple’s position: If Nokia holds patents on technologies built into relevant standards, it has the power to raise their price and thereby exclude competition. And that’s exactly what the company did–according to Apple, anyway.

“Having suffered losses in the marketplace, Nokia has resorted to demanding exorbitant royalties from Apple for patents that Nokia claims are essential to various compatibility standards….” Apple said in the filing. “Throughout the negotiation process, Nokia blatantly attempted to circumvent its contractual obligation to offer non-discriminatory licensing terms to Apple.”

The complaint continues: “While Nokia said it was offering Apple its ‘standard’ royalty terms, Nokia repeated[ly] refused Apple’s request to substantiate that naked representation. Nokia refused to provide any information about what other licensees were for the same standards-essential patent rights and, indeed, demanded that any licensing terms between Nokia and Apple should shrouded in secrecy. Thus, despite its obligation to offer Apple non-discriminatory license terms, Nokia effectively denied Apple that opportunity.”

Apple’s legal counsel certainly seems to be earning its retainer this year.

Dell (DELL) is acquiring Kace Networks, a systems-management appliances venture with clients in government, education and health care. Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

For Dell, which is pushing harder than ever to expand tech services offerings, the deal seems a savvy one. Certainly, it dovetails nicely with the company’s acquisition of Perot and will aid its effort to peddle services to small- and mid-sized businesses–something the company clearly needs to do as profits from its core personal computer business dwindle.

Less than two days after pulling books published by Macmillan in a dispute over e-book pricing, Amazon has conceded.

The world’s dominant e-commerce company says it has agreed to Macmillan’s demands to sell its e-books at a higher price–and in doing so, has made a tacit admission that e-book prices will rise across the board.

That’s because most of the industry’s big players have embraced a similar plan, advanced by Apple (AAPL) to support its iPad launch, to sell e-books for $12.99 and $14.99 instead of the $9.99 Amazon (AMZN) had been pushing.

In an extraordinary statement published on Amazon’s site, the retailer says that it “will have to capitulate and accept Macmillan’s terms because Macmillan has a monopoly over their own titles, and we will want to offer them to you even at prices we believe are needlessly high for e-books.”

No word yet from the other big publishers that have sided with Apple in the e-book pricing war–Pearson’s Penguin Group, News Corp.’s (NWS) HarperCollins, Hachette Book Group and CBS’s (CBS) Simon & Schuster. But keep in mind Steve Jobs’s all-knowing pronouncement about Amazon and Apple e-books: “The prices will be the same.”

Also bear in mind that publishers will actually make less money with the Apple pricing plan. Under the old plan, they sold books to Amazon for around $15 wholesale, and Amazon took a loss in order to retail them for $9.99. Under the new plan, the publishers will get closer to $10 per book.

But the publishers are so freaked out by the parable of the music labels, in which Apple replaced $15 CDs with $1 songs, that they are willing to take the hit in order to maintain some control of their digital pricing.

Odd as this sounds, there’s logic to it, since e-book sales will be small for some time and publishers think that this strategy will help keep the prices up when buyers really do embrace digital.

(Aside: The notion that digital pricing should be dirt cheap simply because it doesn’t cost publishers–or music labels, or Hollywood studios, or whatever–very much to distribute bits, is facile. If you don’t believe me, try ordering a vegetarian entree the next time you go out to dinner, and then tell your waiter you refuse to pay full price because you know that vegetables cost much less than meat. It may be dumb for publishers to try to keep digital prices high, but it’s equally stupid to demand that they lower them on principle.)

It will be interesting to see what Kindle buyers make of the impending price hike, particularly since so many of them are price-conscious consumers who prefer to pay nothing at all for their books.

The music labels love iTunes because it gave them a new revenue stream while CD sales withered away. And the music labels hate iTunes because it helped CD sales wither away by giving consumers the chance to replace $15 discs with $1 songs.

But now, as Apple prepares to launch e-book sales along with its new tablet, the company seems to be taking a different tack. It’s letting book publishers push their digital pricing up instead of down.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Apple (AAPL) was still haggling with publishers Tuesday night, but says the gist of Apple’s offer is this: Publishers can set their e-book prices at $12.99 or $14.99, well above the $9.99-or-less price point Amazon (AMZN) is pushing.

Apple’s terms would actually generate less money per sale for publishers than Amazon currently does, but publishers are so worried about digital cannibalization that they seem willing to take a hit in order to protect their paper-and-ink products. WSJ:

In adopting the Apple model, the balance of power would shift at least partly back to publishers, which regain control of pricing. In setting higher prices, they could provide a level playing field for all e-book retailers. The potential for publishers is that the device may generate greater volume for e-book sales.

But note that Apple isn’t offering publishers complete control of their pricing as it does with developers on its App Store. And while Apple is giving publishers more latitude, it is being more aggressive than ever with the TV business, reportedly by pushing the networks to cut prices for their shows.

The other big caveat is that if Apple does want to sell e-books for 30 percent to 50 percent more than Amazon, those e-books are going to have to be pretty special. Simply adding a dash of color and some graphics won’t cut it–these things will really need to be “enhanced” to justify the premium. Figuring out how to do that while keeping margins intact is a whole other story.

Plenty of time to hear about that later, though. For now, let’s see what Steve Jobs has to show us today.

Digital Daily’s John Paczkowski will be reporting live from the Yerba Buena Center starting at 1 pm ET; head over to his liveblog to catch the action in real time.