

Ask HN: Why is everyone mad at Yahoo? - relaunched

I always thought that Government makes the laws and corporations try to make the most money, for their stakeholders, staying within those laws.  Why aren't politicians taking more heat?<p>After the Google settlement, I'd be pissed, as a Yahoo shareholder, if they didn't take Facebook for all Yahoo's patents are worth.<p>And Facebook is filled with smart people and investors.  I'm sure they knew this was coming, so is this part of their strategy?  Let it all play out in the court of public opinion?
======
tzaman
Everyone is mad at Yahoo because they have let everyone down. Once a
respectable company, they got left behind by other players because their lack
of innovation. No web related (especially this big) company should afford to
stay behind.

And now that their time to "go away" has come, they are taking all possible
(legal) actions to make some more money, which, in my opinion, would just
prolong their misery.

The fact is that Yahoo is a sinking ship and and they are trying to pull
others with them as well - not that they are going to succeed. That's why
everyone is mad at them: They are unable to go down with their heads up.

------
staunch
> _...corporations try to make the most money, for their stakeholders, staying
> within those laws._

This is a pet peeve of mine. There's no fiduciary responsibility to make the
most money in shortest period of time without regard for the future. In fact I
would argue it's exactly the opposite.

Even if Yahoo wins $4 billion dollars they might lose more than that in harm
to their reputation, boycotts, hiring problems, counter-suits, etc.

A reasonable person in their position might have _reasoned_ that this lawsuit
was a bad idea. Yes: it might make them some cash (which isn't their problem),
but it also might hurt them in much more fundamental ways (which they can't
afford).

~~~
relaunched
When Microsoft sues Android manufacturers and settles for ~$5 per phone, is
that less unctuous because they are still growing and innovating?

Is the general premiss that if Yahoo stays the course they'll die a slow death
and this measure extends their runway even more? Last time I checked, Yahoo
still made a billion dollars last year. They aren't anywhere near dead.

I don't understanding why they should abdicate their responsibility and right
to what's probably going to be 5-10 billion in post ipo facebook stock.

They are making changes to fix the long-term view and still are doing
interesting R&D things. Hopefully, they find more interesting ways to make
money from business operations. Is the argument that if your long-term
position isn't right, they can buy the equivalent or more of goodwill by
cutting Facebook a pass? Would that make you leave where you work to join
Yahoo? Would it be 5+ billion worth of culture building? If so, would that
REALLY mean they were back on the right track, or bring them the people that
could help them do so?

~~~
staunch
> _...abdicate their responsibility..._

There's no such responsibility. All they have to do is add up expected gain vs
expected loss to see that it's not a good idea. And it's entirely possible
they're going to walk away with no money in this case. Even if it turns out to
be $10 billion it might still may end up a net loss.

------
Wizzard8
Why not increase shareholder value through true innovation rather than patent
trolling and abuse of a fragile and susceptible patent law system? I think the
industry as a whole is better off when firms innovate rather than litigate.
Just my 2 cents.

~~~
relaunched
I agree. For whatever reason, they have been unable to innovate their way out
of their current situation. However, not enforcing their patents, which
already made them billions before, would just be against their fiduciary
responsibility.

~~~
Wizzard8
Points well taken. By no means am I trying to discredit what Yahoo has been
able to accomplish in their long history on the web. Quite contrary, I'm
suggesting that if they've been able to out innovate before than can do it
once more. Nevertheless, I think by protecting an idea as abstract as a
"Personalizable Profile Page" and then lying in wait until someone is on the
verge of rendering you irrelevant in your field of play is bad sport. Facebook
has been in existence since 2004 and if I remember correctly having a profile
page has always been a part of the site as is the case for multiple sites
(Monster.com, LinkedIn, MySpace, G+, all have "personalizable" profile pages)
why not go after them while they're irrelevant? I just think its poor
sportsmanship and largely will not bode well in the court of public opinion as
many of Yahoo's consumers are likely also Facebook users.

