Guarantees someone will not only think it's a good idea, they will be sure to insult you in the process of telling you so.

I already gave my detailed opinion on the merger itself. Some are wondering why Google would be so vocally opposed to the deal if that's the case.

Well, I believe the answer is that to the extent that Microsoft can't hide their unpopular face behind Yahoo's mask, the less popular a Microsoft-owned Yahoo would be. And their complaints refer specifically to Microsoft's history of bullying entire industries to enhance their monopoly. This is FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) masquerading as legal action.

Also, I'd say on their face, Google's arguments don't really make all that much sense. I don't see how Microsoft would be able to leverage ownership of Yahoo into some stealth tool to monopolize the internet. I could be wrong, but I don't see that Yahoo really has that much clout, especially when it comes to dictating changes in the infrastructure of the internet.

But again, if it raises suspicions, it's good for Google.

Jonathan Swift would find it amusing.

that by many metrics of actual profitability and industry power, rather than blunt instrument proxies like stock price, Microsoft is a much more solvent company Google. But why bother? Manjoo has his Microsoft-hating narrative, and that's that.

And that's not even all the cash MSFT has on hand. They probably have another 20 billion in cash. In which case they could buy almost 40% of Google. And even that's only 23% of the Market Cap of MSFT. Instead of competing with Google why don't those arrogant bastards do something for their shareholders for a change?

"In this light, the Yahoo merger is classic Microsoft -- classic Gates. Crushed by Google in search and online ads, facing the possibility of a long-term decline in its operating system and business software monopolies (at the hands of "cloud" software like Google Apps and mobile OSes from Apple and Google and Symbian), and failing to create any competitive products of its own, the company responds by doing what it knows best -- picking up a rival at exactly the right time, a brilliant stock move.

"If the deal goes through -- and there's really no reason to guess it won't -- Microsoft will have purchased Yahoo for a fraction of what it was once worth.

It will get a great deal for its small outlay, too. Microhoo would have about 30 percent of the search market, compared to Google's 60 percent, and the the second largest online ad network. In Yahoo, Microsoft is also getting the most popular e-mail, news site, finance and photo sites on the Web."

Perhaps Frhad should read his earlier column again before he asks such questions? This deal is really not that complicated. MSFT is buying market share and a few other key items like the ones listed above. In terms of integration, it's not a big deal either. They don't need to rename anything. As the former crooked analyst your quoted said, they could buy 51% and run it as an independent sub or they could buy the whole thing, as they proposed to, and do the same thing.

It's better to have two Yeehaw's, I mean Gogles, I mean... Or, well... One of those and and an Anti-Sherman Trust act.

I dunno waddya y'thnk?

Ah...the days when trust-busters actually had teeth...

for Mr. Yang is about it.

I've already switched to the Linux OS and Open Office, and deleted my Hotmail account. But the monopolizing tyrant is persistent, and won't quit so easily. If the merger goes through, I WILL stop using Yahoo services, as well. There are MUCH better ways to use my PC than Microshaft's way.

"during the long months of uncertainty about the deal, MS and Yahoo will lag."

Highly unlikely that MS will lag, given its first quarter earnings and second quarter/rest of year projections. This has been a banner year for Microsoft, if anything.

MS will continue to do well with SharePoint Server (webparts ARE the new black), SQL, and Office will continue flooding into developing markets.

Meanwhile, Google though hardly imploding, is starting to look overripe. Tech innovators look askance at Google now as they did at Microsoft yesteryear, meanwhile partnering with Microsoft, who still makes the best browser in the world.

Manjoo needs to stop whining about how Microsoft never did anything right - Gates vision of software (he invented the idea of software, like it or not) is alive and well, whether delivered on media or over the web. Gates changed the world. Marc Andreessen changed the world with Mosaic and Netscape. Google has not changed the world. Google lets you search the web and look at cool maps. Google's main contribution has been to enable advertisers to snoop on you so they can sell you more effectively.

... at least not for Yahoo's users.

Think about it. A large fraction of desktop computers are running Microsoft's Windows. What happens if Microsoft pushes out an update to Internet Explorer to give Yahoo a "back door" to access information about Yahoo users that other sites cannot get?

Would this give Yahoo an advantage in the advertising marketplace? Probably. Would it be beneficial to Yahoo's users? I don't think so.

@nevsky:

"he [Gates] invented the idea of software, like it or not"

This is utterly false, and a rather silly thing to say. Honestly, it's like claiming that music was invented with the first iPod.

Software was around before Gates was born. While it is arguable (I'd certainly agree with it) that the introduction of Microsoft BASIC heralded the coming of age of the microcomputer, and Gates was responsible for it, I'm afraid you have to go back into the 50's, or even earlier, to find the guys who preceded even punch cards and paper tape.

Likewise, no matter what Farhad and other Apple true believers might contend, Jobs and Wozniak did not invent the concept of the computer in a garage in Silicon Valley.

No one should deny Gates' accomplishments, but one can certainly argue whether Microsoft is currently a net force for the good of the country or even the computer industry, which is what people are doing here.