Microsoft interested in buying Yahoo

[NiTRoX]

Microsoft makes bid for Yahoo; May change the search game; Bid could rise

Microsoft said Friday that it is making an unsolicited offer of $31 a share, or $44.6 billion, to buy Yahoo in a move that would give the software giant more market share and become a significant threat to Google.

In a statement, Microsoft would allow Yahoo shareholders to get cash or shares of Microsoft. At a 62 percent premium to Yahoo’s closing price of $19.18 the deal would seem like a no brainer for suffering Yahoo shareholders. Yahoo said it will evaluate the offer “carefully and promptly.”

Analysts called Microsoft’s overture a “bear hug” and noted that the price tag may increase to seal the deal. Leland Westerfield, an analyst at BMO Capital Markets, had the most interesting take on the deal. In a research note, he said:

The Yahoo offer could rise above $31. The valuation amounts to 12x projected core EBITDA for Yahoo, net of cash and equity assets from Yahoo! Japan and Alibaba and GMarket that amount to ~$12 per Yahoo. The offer, presented as an open-letter to Yahoo! Board, strikes us an effort to drive a wedge between Yahoo management and directors’ constituencies who might favor a transaction and those who resist a takeover - and therefore it is our view that Microsoft would ultimately need to sweeten its initial offer price in order to prevail.

On a conference call with analysts, Microsoft didn’t exactly shoot down the idea that the bid could rise. Microsoft CFO Chris Liddell ducked a question about whether the company’s bid for Yahoo was final. Microsoft executives said the time was right for the Yahoo offer. The two parties had been talking for 18 months, said Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer (see Dan’s conference call notes).

Another wild-card: Google could be a spoiler. In fact, Citigroup analyst Mark Mahaney said Yahoo has few options to boost shareholder value right now. Yahoo’s one trump card should it want to remain independent would be outsourcing search to Google in a move that could boost earnings by 25 percent.

The deal, which has been rumored off an on for years, makes two things clear: Yahoo’s assets are promising despite naysayers and Microsoft is damn serious about being a search player. A long-awaited Microsoft-Yahoo made sense a year ago and makes sense now.

Meanwhile, Microsoft must be sensing that it has one big shot to catch Google in the search wars and Yahoo is the best way to make it happen. Google is still executing well, but there are worries about growth. On the surface, Microsoft’s bid is out of character, but given acquisitions like aQuantive it’s clear that Ballmer (left) is thinking a little like Oracle CEO Larry Ellison. In October, Ballmer said Microsoft would eventually dunk on Google–looks more like a roll-up to me.

Microsoft said the deal is about scale.

Ballmer said:

“We have great respect for Yahoo!, and together we can offer an increasingly exciting set of solutions for consumers, publishers and advertisers while becoming better positioned to compete in the online services market. We believe our combination will deliver superior value to our respective shareholders and better choice and innovation to our customers and industry partners.”

Ray Ozzie, chief software architect at Microsoft, said:

“Our lives, our businesses, and even our society have been progressively transformed by the Web, and Yahoo! has played a pioneering role by building compelling, high-scale services and infrastructure. The combination of these two great teams would enable us to jointly deliver a broad range of new experiences to our customers that neither of us would have achieved on our own.”

Indeed, the combinations of assets from a combined Microsoft and Yahoo is a bit staggering. MSN, Yahoo, Flickr, Zimbra and a bunch of other properties would be under one roof. The big question: Can Microsoft manage it all?

Some key questions to ponder: Would Zimbra become the future Office Live? How about rationalizing products, ad systems and search algorithms. What about ad markets? Cloud computing projects? The overlap is immense.


In the end, those headaches may be worth it. Sure, there would be some overlap between the companies, but Microsoft would get Yahoo’s managers like Sue Decker and research teams. Microsoft touted R&D critical mass and innovation as two big selling points. In addition, the two combined Web giants could cut a lot of costs. Microsoft is estimating about $1 billion in savings from the combined entity. CEO Jerry Yang (right) would have to consider the proposal in the name of shareholder value. Given the impatience of Wall Street it’s clear that folks aren’t going to wait around for Yang to grow in the job and get Yahoo back to $31 a share.

Specifically, Microsoft says the combined companies can target the following areas:
Scale economics driven by audience critical mass and increased value for advertisers;
Combined engineering talent to accelerate innovation;
Operational efficiencies through elimination of redundant cost;
And the ability to innovate in emerging user experiences such as video and mobile.

Microsoft added that it will dangle retention plans to keep talent and has processes and a plan in place to integrate Yahoo. We’ll overlook for the moment that Microsoft has never integrated a company as large as Yahoo.

The deal would allegedly close in the second half of 2008, but I’d expect the usual European Union hangups and U.S. approval.

Microsoft sent the following letter to Yahoo. Realistically it’s hard to see how Yahoo could say no.
January 31, 2008

    Board of Directors
    Yahoo! Inc.
    701 First Avenue
    Sunnyvale, CA 94089
    Attention: Roy Bostock, Chairman
    Attention: Jerry Yang, Chief Executive Officer

    Dear Members of the Board:

I am writing on behalf of the Board of Directors of Microsoft to make a proposal for a business combination of Microsoft and Yahoo!. Under our proposal, Microsoft would acquire all of the outstanding shares of Yahoo! common stock for per share consideration of $31 based on Microsoft’s closing share price on January 31, 2008, payable in the form of $31 in cash or 0.9509 of a share of Microsoft common stock. Microsoft would provide each Yahoo! shareholder with the ability to choose whether to receive the consideration in cash or Microsoft common stock, subject to pro-ration so that in the aggregate one-half of the Yahoo! common shares will be exchanged for shares of Microsoft common stock and one-half of the Yahoo! common shares will be converted into the right to receive cash. Our proposal is not subject to any financing condition.

Our proposal represents a 62% premium above the closing price of Yahoo! common stock of $19.18 on January 31, 2008. The implied premium for the operating assets of the company clearly is considerably greater when adjusted for the minority, non-controlled assets and cash. By whatever financial measure you use - EBITDA, free cash flow, operating cash flow, net income, or analyst target prices - this proposal represents a compelling value realization event for your shareholders.

We believe that Microsoft common stock represents a very attractive investment opportunity for Yahoo!’s shareholders. Microsoft has generated revenue growth of 15%, earnings growth of 26%, and a return on equity of 35% on average for the last three years. Microsoft’s share price has generated shareholder returns of 8% during the last one year period and 28% during the last three year period, significantly outperforming the S&P 500. It is our view that Microsoft has significant potential upside given the continued solid growth in our core businesses, the recent launch of Windows Vista, and other strategic initiatives.

Microsoft’s consistent belief has been that the combination of Microsoft and Yahoo! clearly represents the best way to deliver maximum value to our respective shareholders, as well as create a more efficient and competitive company that would provide greater value and service to our customers. In late 2006 and early 2007, we jointly explored a broad range of ways in which our two companies might work together. These discussions were based on a vision that the online businesses of Microsoft and Yahoo! should be aligned in some way to create a more effective competitor in the online marketplace. We discussed a number of alternatives ranging from commercial partnerships to a merger proposal, which you rejected. While a commercial partnership may have made sense at one time, Microsoft believes that the only alternative now is the combination of Microsoft and Yahoo! that we are proposing.

In February 2007, I received a letter from your Chairman indicating the view of the Yahoo! Board that “now is not the right time from the perspective of our shareholders to enter into discussions regarding an acquisition transaction.” According to that letter, the principal reason for this view was the Yahoo! Board’s confidence in the “potential upside” if management successfully executed on a reformulated strategy based on certain operational initiatives, such as Project Panama, and a significant organizational realignment. A year has gone by, and the competitive situation has not improved.

While online advertising growth continues, there are significant benefits of scale in advertising platform economics, in capital costs for search index build-out, and in research and development, making this a time of industry consolidation and convergence. Today, the market is increasingly dominated by one player who is consolidating its dominance through acquisition. Together, Microsoft and Yahoo! can offer a credible alternative for consumers, advertisers, and publishers. Synergies of this combination fall into four areas:
Scale economics: This combination enables synergies related to scale economics of the advertising platform where today there is only one competitor at scale. This includes synergies across both search and non-search related advertising that will strengthen the value proposition to both advertisers and publishers. Additionally, the combination allows us to consolidate capital spending.
Expanded R&D capacity: The combined talent of our engineering resources can be focused on R&D priorities such as a single search index and single advertising platform. Together we can unleash new levels of innovation, delivering enhanced user experiences, breakthroughs in search, and new advertising platform capabilities. Many of these breakthroughs are a function of an engineering scale that today neither of our companies has on its own.
Operational efficiencies: Eliminating redundant infrastructure and duplicative operating costs will improve the financial performance of the combined entity.
Emerging user experiences: Our combined ability to focus engineering resources that drive innovation in emerging scenarios such as video, mobile services, online commerce, social media, and social platforms is greatly enhanced.

We would value the opportunity to further discuss with you how to optimize the integration of our respective businesses to create a leading global technology company with exceptional display and search advertising capabilities. You should also be aware that we intend to offer significant retention packages to your engineers, key leaders and employees across all disciplines.

We have dedicated considerable time and resources to an analysis of a potential transaction and are confident that the combination will receive all necessary regulatory approvals. We look forward to discussing this with you, and both our internal legal team and outside counsel are available to meet with your counsel at their earliest convenience.

Our proposal is subject to the negotiation of a definitive merger agreement and our having the opportunity to conduct certain limited and confirmatory due diligence. In addition, because a portion of the aggregate merger consideration would consist of Microsoft common stock, we would provide Yahoo! the opportunity to conduct appropriate limited due diligence with respect to Microsoft. We are prepared to deliver a draft merger agreement to you and begin discussions immediately.

In light of the significance of this proposal to your shareholders and ours, as well as the potential for selective disclosures, our intention is to publicly release the text of this letter tomorrow morning.

Due to the importance of these discussions and the value represented by our proposal, we expect the Yahoo! Board to engage in a full review of our proposal. My leadership team and I would be happy to make ourselves available to meet with you and your Board at your earliest convenience. Depending on the nature of your response, Microsoft reserves the right to pursue all necessary steps to ensure that Yahoo!’s shareholders are provided with the opportunity to realize the value inherent in our proposal.

We believe this proposal represents a unique opportunity to create significant value for Yahoo!’s shareholders and employees, and the combined company will be better positioned to provide an enhanced value proposition to users and advertisers. We hope that you and your Board share our enthusiasm, and we look forward to a prompt and favorable reply.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Steven A. Ballmer
Steven A. Ballmer
Chief Executive Officer

Microsoft

[The MC Horton Crankfire]

Perhaps having serious competition again will be good for Google? Still, it'll be hard to pull me from the relatively virtuous (as far as corporations their size go) Google to one as brutal and inhuman as Microsoft.

In fact, just given their pure bloodthirst for taking down Google, I doubt I'll use Yahoo! when they acquire it, improvements or not, just out of spite.

[PIE]

Microsoft makes bid for Yahoo; May change the search game;

Doubt it.. they will Microsoft yahoo up... then it will become even more one sided.

[jr2]

Hello... look at MSN search.  Who the heck uses that if they know any better?  Bleck.  EWWWWW!  Unless M$ wants to learn from Yahoo, I don't see much good coming of this.

[Kaleo]

Yahoo is already relatively unused. If M$ buy it, no-one will touch it.

[Lava Croft]

Might I add to this that MicroSoft's interest in Yahoo is something that has been going on for a while now.

[The MC Horton Crankfire]

Guys, most people don't the "lol micro$oft sux" mentality that informed people (nerds) like us do, and most people don't really even know what to look for in a good search engine. Besides, it seems like MS has largely neglected their own search engine, so that's not much of a basis for comparison, and I'm sure they've got the presence of mind to do some good things with Yahoo. At any rate, they've certainly got the ability.

I wouldn't undercut their influence, not just yet. I'm not saying they're going to challenge Google anytime soon, but they'll probably make waves.

[jr2]

Hmm.  Perhaps Google could use some competition... it might keep them from getting 3v1l like M1cr050f7.. although IIRC, M$ has always been evil... Windows 1.00 didn't exist; it was just a screensaver that did nothing but stop ppl from buying the alternative... among other stories of their dirty tricks.  I wonder if there is an accurate list of M$ misdeeds somewhere that does *NOT* have rabid anti-M$ flaming integrated as well.

[NiTRoX]

UPDATE:GOOGLE'S RESPONSE

February 4, 2008

Google Works to Torpedo Microsoft Bid for Yahoo
By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN and MIGUEL HELFT
Standing between a marriage of Microsoft and Yahoo may be the technology behemoth that has continually outsmarted them: Google.

In an unusually aggressive effort to prevent Microsoft from moving forward with its $44.6 billion hostile bid for Yahoo, Google emerged over the weekend with plans to play the role of spoiler.

Publicly, Google came out against the deal, contending in a statement that the pairing, proposed by Microsoft on Friday in the form of a hostile offer, would pose threats to competition that need to be examined by policy makers around the world.

Privately, Google, seeing the potential deal as a direct attack, went much further. Its chief executive, Eric E. Schmidt, placed a call to Yahoo’s chief, Jerry Yang, offering the company’s help in fending off Microsoft, possibly in the form of a partnership between the companies, people briefed on the call said.

Google’s lobbyists in Washington have also begun plotting how it might present a case against the transaction to lawmakers, people briefed on the company’s plans said. Google could benefit by simply prolonging a regulatory review until after the next president takes office.

In addition, several Google executives made “back-channel” calls over the weekend to allies at companies like Time Warner, which owns AOL, to inquire whether they planned to pursue a rival offer and how they could assist, these people said. Google owns 5 percent of AOL.

Despite Google’s efforts and the work of Yahoo’s own bankers over the weekend to garner interest in a bid to rival Microsoft’s, one did not seem likely, at least at this early stage.

For example, a spokesman for the News Corporation said Sunday night that it was not preparing a bid, and other frequently named prospective suitors like Time Warner, AT&T and Comcast have not begun work on offers, people close to them said. They suggested that they did not want to enter a bidding war with Microsoft, which could easily top their offers.

A spokesman for Time Warner declined to comment, as did a spokesman for Comcast. A representative for AT&T could not be reached.

In the meantime, people close to Yahoo said that the company received a flurry of inquires over the weekend from potential suitors. Some people inside Yahoo have even speculated about the prospect of breaking up the company. That could mean selling or outsourcing its search-related business to Google and spinning off or selling its operations that product original content, these people said.

“Everyone is considering all kinds of options and deal on search is one of them,” a person familiar with the situation said.

One person involved in Yahoo’s deliberations suggested that “the sum of the parts are worth more than the whole,” arguing that its various pieces like Yahoo Finance, for example, could be sold to a company like the News Corporation for a huge premium while Yahoo Sports could be sold to a company like ESPN, a unit of the Walt Disney Company.

Executives at rival companies were less optimistic about such a breakup strategy. “No one can get to a $44 billion price,” one executive at a major media company said, “even if you split it into a dozen pieces.”

In making its bid for Yahoo, Microsoft is betting that past antitrust rulings against it for abusing its monopoly power in personal computer software will not restrain its hand in an Internet deal.

In the United States, a federal district court in Washington ruled in 2001 that Microsoft had repeatedly violated the law by stifling the threat to its monopoly position posed by Netscape, which popularized the Web browser. The suit, brought during the Clinton administration, was settled by the Bush administration. But as a result of a consent decree extending through 2009, a federal court and a three-member team of technical experts monitors Microsoft’s behavior.

In 2006, for example, after Google complained to the Justice Department and the European Commission that Microsoft was making its MSN search engine the default in the most recent version of its Web browser, Microsoft modified the software so that consumers could easily change to Google or Yahoo.

In Google’s statement on Sunday, it said that the potential purchase of Yahoo by Microsoft could pose threats to competition that needed to be examined by policy makers.

Google’s broadly worded concerns lacked detailed claims about any anticompetitive effects of the deal, and the company did not publicly ask regulators to take specific actions at this time.

“Could Microsoft now attempt to exert the same sort of inappropriate and illegal influence over the Internet that it did with the PC?” asked David Drummond, Google’s senior vice president and chief legal officer, writing on the company’s blog.

Yahoo and Microsoft declined to comment Sunday on Google’s actions. Earlier on Sunday, Microsoft’s general counsel, Bradford L. Smith, said in a statement: “The combination of Microsoft and Yahoo will create a more competitive marketplace by establishing a compelling No. 2 competitor for Internet search and online advertising.”

Google’s effort to derail or delay the deal on antitrust grounds mirrors Microsoft’s own actions with respect to Google’s bid for the online advertising specialist DoubleClick for $3.1 billion, announced in April.

The strategy is not surprising, considering that any delays would work to Google’s benefit. “Google can tap into all of the ill will that Microsoft has created in the last couple of decades on the antitrust front,” said Eric Goldman, director the High-Tech Law Institute at the Santa Clara University School of Law.

The outcome of any antitrust inquiry will hinge, in part, on how regulators define various markets. Microsoft-Yahoo, for instance, would have a large share of the Web-based e-mail market, but a smaller share of the overall e-mail market.

“The potential concern would be that Microsoft, if it acquires Yahoo, could do on the Internet what it did in the personal computer world — make technical standards more Microsoft-centric and steer consumers to its products,” said Stephen D. Houck, a lawyer representing the states involved in the consent decree against Microsoft.

Yahoo has not made a public statement about the proposed deal since Friday, when it said it was weighing Microsoft’s offer as well as alternatives and would “pursue the best course of action to maximize long-term value for shareholders.”

Carl W. Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia, said an antitrust review of the Microsoft-Yahoo deal could take a long time and “may well bleed into a new administration with an entire new view on antitrust than the Bush administration.”

@jr2: Critcism of Microsoft
 

[Lava Croft]

People who are anti-MicroSoft, or anti- any software company for that matter, have a serious mental deficit and need to get some serious help.

[ODDity]

The latest TWiT (this week in tech) netcast talks all about it if you fancy some listening. (its episode 130 of TWiT)

Hope you enjoy it if you listen. There are actually a number of good shows that Leo and friends do during the week - great for ipod.

[The MC Horton Crankfire]

People who are anti-MicroSoft, or anti- any software company for that matter, have a serious mental deficit and need to get some serious help.

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion so fast. Microsoft has practiced probably some of the most cutthroat and unfair business methods in America since anti-trust laws were put in place. The only thing to take issue with is if people oppose them without knowing why, or without opposing other corporations that are equally bad.

[gareth]

im anti microsoft, anti linux AND anti lava-croft.

[mooseberry]

I'm sorry you don't like Microsoft, why don't you go cry about it in a small dark corner.

I really couldn't care less about your griping about how Microsoft has made deals that were good fro themselves.

[PIE]

Lets complain about other people's opinions.

[mooseberry]

Lets complain about other people's opinions.

Thats such a dumb idea.


 

[jr2]

@jr2: Critcism of Microsoft

Thx... was informative.  I'd already heard of some of that, but this is more info... without any ranting involved.  Nice.   

[Lava Croft]

Lets complain about other people's opinions.

People who are anti-MicroSoft, or anti- any software company for that matter, have a serious mental deficit and need to get some serious help.

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion so fast. Microsoft has practiced probably some of the most cutthroat and unfair business methods in America since anti-trust laws were put in place. The only thing to take issue with is if people oppose them without knowing why, or without opposing other corporations that are equally bad.

And of course, MicroSoft is one of the biggest problems this world is facing, The rest is far less important than some bloated software company which makes crippled software. You people need to set priorities. Look at what other multinationals do, things that make MicroSoft look like a charity. But of course, everybody understands what a big mark MicroSoft is, and what easy glory you can gain from bashing it.

[NiTRoX]

Lets complain about other people's opinions.

People who are anti-MicroSoft, or anti- any software company for that matter, have a serious mental deficit and need to get some serious help.

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion so fast. Microsoft has practiced probably some of the most cutthroat and unfair business methods in America since anti-trust laws were put in place. The only thing to take issue with is if people oppose them without knowing why, or without opposing other corporations that are equally bad.

And of course, MicroSoft is one of the biggest problems this world is facing, The rest is far less important than some bloated software company which makes crippled software. You people need to set priorities. Look at what other multinationals do, things that make MicroSoft look like a charity. But of course, everybody understands what a big mark MicroSoft is, and what easy glory you can gain from bashing it.

Bill gates has a charity foundation. (Bill and melinda gates foudnation) and it is said that Bill Gates will leave only mirosoft to his children and the money will go for poor people in Africa. He can end poverty you know..

[+ OPTIMUS +]

anti-company chitchat is the online version of football hooliganism.

[ODDity]

Bill gates has a charity foundation. (Bill and melinda gates foudnation) and it is said that Bill Gates will leave only mirosoft to his children and the money will go for poor people in Africa. He can end poverty you know..

He also said windows 98 would be fast and secure and vista would WOW ..

http://www.blip.tv/file/340692    <-- funny vista vid.

x

[The MC Horton Crankfire]

And of course, MicroSoft is one of the biggest problems this world is facing, The rest is far less important than some bloated software company which makes crippled software. You people need to set priorities. Look at what other multinationals do, things that make MicroSoft look like a charity. But of course, everybody understands what a big mark MicroSoft is, and what easy glory you can gain from bashing it.

I've already covered that point:

The only thing to take issue with is if people oppose them without knowing why, or without opposing other corporations that are equally bad.

Maybe "equally bad or worse" would've been better wording, but surely I got my point across. I have no personal beef, and I never said I had. If I make fun of them, it's over an issue that's close to home for me, and because I get a kick out of it. I'm well aware that there are worse corporations and other groups of powerful people that are doing worse things to the world.

But by the same token, Microsoft is still a bad company. I never said I think they're the pinnacle of inhumanity, but they're still quite immoral, and that's enough for me to be anti-Microsoft. What's the problem here? lol

Bill gates has a charity foundation. (Bill and melinda gates foudnation) and it is said that Bill Gates will leave only mirosoft to his children and the money will go for poor people in Africa. He can end poverty you know..

He's the richest (second richest? Apparently he got passed up by someone recently) man in the world, I think it's kin of expected of him to give some back lol. And if he does indeed give his money to fight poverty in Africa when he dies (where'd you get that information? I'm not saying it's not true, but there's tons of Bill Gates rumors), it's not like it's any skin off his back. I can't imagine how I'll use whatever money I have after I die. lol

Also, no, even if he has the best of intentions, he can't end poverty by just throwing money at the country. It has to go through the right channels to get to the right places to provide the right opportunities for the African countries to pull themselves out of poverty. Getting there would be a long and painful process, and you'd have to deal with wiping out a huge AIDS epidemic and dealing with government leaders who honestly just don't give a shit about the impoverished in their country, to name a few. And even if you do wipe out all the obstacles and create the opportunities, it's up to the people to pull themselves out. Poverty is a lifestyle, and you never know what the reactions will be to such a lifestyle change (such as the large amount of crime in former slaves right after they were freed in America). I imagine it could bring the best or worst out of people.

Now I think Bill Gates has a net worth of $56 billion or something, and we're talking about him giving it all to Africa, right? Here's something for comparison: The Iraq War has so far cost the US $491 billion. Gates can help the situation in Africa, but he most certainly can't solve it.

[+ OPTIMUS +]

Now I think Bill Gates has a net worth of $56 billion or something, and we're talking about him giving it all to Africa, right? Here's something for comparison: The Iraq War has so far cost the US $491 billion. Gates can help the situation in Africa, but he most certainly can't solve it.

peace is cheaper than war and is much more fun....

[Superpie]

Now I think Bill Gates has a net worth of $56 billion or something, and we're talking about him giving it all to Africa, right? Here's something for comparison: The Iraq War has so far cost the US $491 billion. Gates can help the situation in Africa, but he most certainly can't solve it.

peace is cheaper than war and is much more fun....

Is that why  you play tremulous with its simulated violence? 

[The MC Horton Crankfire]

Now I think Bill Gates has a net worth of $56 billion or something, and we're talking about him giving it all to Africa, right? Here's something for comparison: The Iraq War has so far cost the US $491 billion. Gates can help the situation in Africa, but he most certainly can't solve it.

peace is cheaper than war and is much more fun....

No to the former and yes to the latter.

[mooseberry]

.................................................

You're right, since Bill Gate has a lot of money, his donating it to fight cancer, poverty, aids, etc doesn't mean anything, and he must be doing it for some mean, evil purpose. I'm sorry I just hadn't understood your logic up until now.

[The MC Horton Crankfire]

.................................................

You're right, since Bill Gate has a lot of money, his donating it to fight cancer, poverty, aids, etc doesn't mean anything, and he must be doing it for some mean, evil purpose. I'm sorry I just hadn't understood your logic up until now.

*sigh* I give up. Heh.

[jr2]

.................................................

You're right, since Bill Gate has a lot of money, his donating it to fight cancer, poverty, aids, etc doesn't mean anything, and he must be doing it for some mean, evil purpose. I'm sorry I just hadn't understood your logic up until now.

Of course.  I'm simply shocked at your intelligence.  I didn't quite get that out of the Horton's comments; I bow to your superior intellect and reading comprehension skillz.

/sarcasm

*sigh* I give up. Heh.

   Never give up.  Never surrender!

[Revan]

.................................................

You're right, since Bill Gate has a lot of money, his donating it to fight cancer, poverty, aids, etc doesn't mean anything, and he must be doing it for some mean, evil purpose. I'm sorry I just hadn't understood your logic up until now.

Considering that there is a highly effective known cure for cancer he doesn't need to spend money on research for new cures for it

Most people do seem to understand that if he wanted to pile up his money in a field and torch it IT IS HIS MONEY it isnt anyones business what he does with it

btw. I do drink Apple Kool-Aid 

[mooseberry]

Highly effective right now means about an 80% cure rate. While that is pretty good, that still means 20%, or 2 out of 10 people infected will die of cancer. I don't think there is anything wrong with investing money in trying to improve ways to cure cancer.