[carlosponti]

I heard that if customers complain that maybe regulators will be willing to listen and not allow the hostile take over to go through. I just wish i knew how i would do that.

[carlosponti]

i sent an email to the ftc through antitrust@ftc.gov i hope they will respond and maybe do whats right and not allow the sale. i may write my congressman as well. not that i believe that will do any good but i wont sit and do nothing.

[carlosponti]

Well I went ahead and wrote my congressman I would suggest to those living in the US do so as well. I think its up to everyone to make sure to get the word out that this would be bad for the country. I would also suggest to those living out side the US to write an email to the antitrust email and let them know that you are unhappy with the merger and while you live outside the US you use the yahoo services and would be effected as well.

[fingal]

Originally Posted by carlosponti

Well I went ahead and wrote my congressman I would suggest to those living in the US do so as well.

I admire you for taking action. These days it's a lot easier to respond in the way you have. In fact, I have a few things to write about myself!

[carlosponti]

I emailed the Antitrust division of the Department of Justice telling them how bad i think this is as well. apparently Yahoo and Hotmail make up a vast majority of email in the US and would monopolize email in the US if the merger goes through.

[cousinlucky]

Phone calls and Emails are modern ways of communicating.

However if you want to be effective with American politicians you have to send them written certified or registered mail that someone will have to sign for. It is always good at the end of the letter to C.C. the local media and community groups where you live.

Doing so ensures that your letter will be paid attention to and maybe have a beneficial effect.

[ryokimball]

Well, I'm somewhat interested in what's going on (although I pretty much ignore anything that smells like "politics," even if it is computer or technology related...). The link that started this has gone dead --could someone tell me why I might care about what's going on? (I mean that literally, not sarcastically...). I don't want to ignore it if it's really worth getting into....

[fingal]

Originally Posted by ryokimball

Well, I'm somewhat interested in what's going on (although I pretty much ignore anything that smells like "politics," even if it is computer or technology related...). The link that started this has gone dead --could someone tell me why I might care about what's going on? (I mean that literally, not sarcastically...). I don't want to ignore it if it's really worth getting into....

I suppose no-one can tell you to care about this if you don't want. The BBC website carries this article, which tries to provide a balanced view. There are probably many others out there; some of them more reasonable than others. Speaking for myself, I don't like monopolistic organisations, so I'm opposed to such a takeover. I've had a Yahoo account for many years now, but if MS succeed in their bid to buy it out I'll switch to my Gmail (I use it occasionally) or purchase a domain name and use the associated email addresses.

[ryokimball]

Originally Posted by fingal

... so I'm opposed to such a takeover.

Is it really a takeover, or a buy out?
In retrospect, I suppose that wasn't the most compassionate way of stating my ignorance. I don't mean to say "I don't care." I just don't know why I should. I use gmail; I have a Yahoo and several other email accounts that serve their purpose, but none get the attention as Gmail does. And if Microsoft is going to buy Yahoo I'll simply stop using it, but what is the harm in that? I mean, it is a disappointment, but I don't think Yahoo is going to stand up and say "no, you can't buy us" no matter how many of its users (the few it may be) protest, and if that is the case what is there that we as the users can do? You speak of antitrust issues, which I am probabloy relatively ignorant to as well; I know of Rockefeller and company, but not much on what or what not to consider a "trust-worthy" company. I mean, I don't trust Microsoft, but as far as I know they are 89% legal, and buying out other corporations is among the legal things they can do. It just may be the hopeless-romantic in me, for I don't see why people should worry about Microsoft trying to monopolizing as long as people, such as those in the Linux community, are actively making computers their own, as in not property of someone else under loan (like those DirecTV cards...).

Like I said, it's probably my ignorance, but I won't ever have to do what They tell me to because I know better. Why can't everyone else?
EDIT: I get the feeling that I'm coming off as willfully ignorant. I don't mean to be ignorant, I just don't get it.

[fingal]

Originally Posted by ryokimball

Is it really a takeover, or a buy out.

It's a takeover. There are a lot of complex angles to this one as the real financial cost to MS is starting to emerge. If I was pro MS I might argue, 'This is expensive and bad for our shareholders'. If I worked for Yahoo I might welcome the takeover as some form of financial salvation.

Whatever happens the world won't end if Yahoo are swallowed by the Big M, but as someone who advocates open source software, I don't approve of such a move. This is a matter of conscience for me, and might not have any sound logical defence. I never said I was logical Spock.

There seems to be a global trend towards mergers and takeovers, and actually I stand to lose through this. I work in the housing sector and I'm seeing a lot of small organisations merging into mega-companies. A new phrase has emerged (coined by a housing professional). It's called 'willy waggling'. This is what happens when a lot of male business nerds gather together around board tables and have a conversation like this:

Augustus P. Fingalberger - 'Mergers are good! Think of the economies of scale we could achieve by getting together with organisation X'.

Bob the Toady - 'Yesssss you are indeed wise massssster!'

So off they go and merge, or takeover or something similar. Unfortunately small organisations who rely on other small (un-merged/un-taken-over) companies then lose their profit margin, because they were providing a service, and the BIG NEW organisation doesn't want to pay them the same rate for the job. Why not? Because now two organisations have become one... Economies of scale.

I wouldn't get any points for arguing like this in an academic paper, but I have an inbuilt fear of large companies. I've worked for a few and I won't be going back. They are rather scary, and I happen to believe that the willy wagglers are wrong - Sometimes big companies are less efficient and cost effective than smaller (well run!) ones. You might disagree.