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.

> ...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).

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?

> ...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.

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.

Your argument requires one to summarily reject all of Yahoo's claims based on a preexisting ideological stance in regards to software patents.

For the sake of argument, let's assume Facebook is utilizing Yahoo's legitimate and innovative intellectual property. Then it's Facebook which is stifling innovation with IP theft.

In the history of Lockean property rights - from the settlement of North America to file sharing, the first step toward the appropriation of the property of others is invariably to claim that they have no legitimate ownership claim.

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.

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.