> screwing up a potential acquisition

Right. Letting Microsoft acquire Yahoo was the best thing to do...

Because, like I said then, two bricks float better than one.

What Yahoo needs is a CEO with a clear vision and accountability at all levels. That's not what Microsoft is known for.

To be honest, I know, and the DOJ certainly didn't help.

implying microsoft acquisition of a big competitor is a good thing.

He screwed the company's owners out of many millions of dollars. Microsoft may well have killed and gutted the fish, but the CEO's responsibility is to the shareholders.

I see what you mean. But let's say he would have sold to Microsoft and then Microsoft would have killed and gutted the fish, you'd probably be criticizing him for having no vision by selling Yahoo to MS and letting it die like that.

On that matter, IMO the Revlon duties should be completely eliminated.

  1. he sells for MS.
  2. shareholders get some above average return in MS shares.
  3. a bunch of companies buy some dismembered yahoo pieces like flickr, babelfish, etc
  4. those companies pays more returns than microsoft in 5yrs.
  6. everyone criticizes him for not being able to see ahead and costing the investors money in the long run.

Oh sorry, it's just you who can see the future?

...only icahn and pension funds wants companies sold to microsoft. I know I don't. Then you can argue that it's yahoo... so what, those people invested in yahoo. bet they feel the same as i feel for companies i'm investing.