That has to be one of strangest news blurbs I've seen in a while. Since when was Yahoo pursuing talks with MS? It never has been. I'd have to say that reporter just doesn't have a clue.

Nonsense

Jerry Yang may not have been pursuing a sale to Microsoft, but yahoo's major shareholders most certainly were.

Whatever anyone thinks of Microsoft's attempts to buy yahoo (personally I think they made a ridiculously high offer) the simple fact is that yahoo is a publically traded company, with shareholders to work for. Someone attempting to 'make a stand' against Microsoft has absolutely no right to do so if that acts counter intuitive to the best interests of said shareholders.

Carl Icann is NOT Yahoo, INC. He owns stock, but he is not the company and does not speak for them. This news blurb makes it appear that Yahoo, the company, has been pursuing talks with MS. That's simply not true.

As to the idea that profit is the only motive that should run a corporation, well, that idea is starting to be contested more and more. I for one think that a profit-only vision is completely stupid. It ignores all other aspects of a company and ends up running said company into the ground in search of short-term profits. I would never invest in a company that was run that way.

At the end of the day, I didn't invest my money into a company so they could have a bigger bank role. I expect my money to return a profit. It might not be tomorrow, but either the stock is under-valued today or a vision / plan is in place to make the shares seem attractive in the long run (stock increase in value).

Yahoo's stock is not under valued; so what's the vision? Carl Icann may not see it, but he did see a positive out with MS.

Sure, he saw short-term profit. Many people simply do not see how a MS deal with Yahoo could succeed over the long haul. Their cultures are completely different, their goals and ideals are completely different. MS buying them out would have simply meant the destruction of Yahoo in the end. That does no one any good, and if you think the good of the employees doesn't factor into any deal then I completely disagree with you. Destroying people's livelihoods so stockholders can have short-term gains is so immoral as to be despicable.

That may be true, but employees didn't mind when the money was being invested in the company. If the company wasn't 'steered' in the right direction it was the management / board's fault.

At the end of the day, the money trail always started and ended with the investors. It's not a crime for them to want a positive return.