absolutely alex’s adventures & times

It is horrible to be ill.

It is even worse when one gets hounded about it the way Apple’s visionary and practically indispensable chief, Steve Jobs, has been.

One instinctively feels sorry for the man. Hasn’t he done enough to light up the world with the innovative and game-changing gadgets and gizmos his company sends out year after year? Why can’t people just leave him be to recover? Why do people feel like they have to know every little detail about what’s wrong with him, when they see him appearing gaunt and sickly-looking? Isn’t his health something private that only his family and friends should feel entitled to be knowledgeable about?

Editorials have said that since Jobs is the driving force behind, and trump card of Apple Inc., investors and shareholders have a right to know if the lodestone of the company is in serious health trouble and could affect his performance, and consequently, the company’s bottomline.

Granted, they do have a point there, which perhaps explains why Jobs and Apple have decided to hand over the reins temporarily to the company’s COO Tim Cook, while Jobs goes off and deals with his condition.

Of course, Jobs isn’t doing himself any favors by keeping mum either. By refusing to come clean at the onset, he has given critics more ammunition and caused even more consternation among investors than is perhaps necessary. Speculation might have taken an even gloomier turn than what Jobs’ true condition might be, as people continue to fear the worst and rumors circulate unchecked.

Famous for being ultra-secretive and detesting leaks, it should come as no surprise that Jobs has decided to remain vague about his health and what ails him. But at the same time, the media ought to give him a break and consider that the company that has been built up over the years since Jobs’ return will have the brain trust in place to keep going strong, with or without him. Brilliant as he is, Jobs is only mortal. Surely the company, and investors, have thought of the day the company might be without his presence and contingency plans must be in place, especially since his famous bout with pancreatic cancer a few years ago.

Yes, he is a public figure and his health could be considered, in some ways, “material fact” about Apple’s outlook. And no doubt Jobs have caused more confusion and frustration with his ever-changing storyline and continued reluctance to clear the air. But no matter how mighty Jobs is, the future of the company cannot rest on one man alone. It is the media’s mistake to stake everything about Apple on Jobs only.

Just let the man concentrate on getting well quickly, so that he could come back and give us even more wonderful goods we didn’t really need in the first place.

So much for the soon-to-be Obama administration’s so-called stringent vetting processes for hiring staffers.

Bill Richardson has already withdrawn from being considered as Commerce Secretary.

The choice for the next attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., continues to face much criticism and skepticism for his years in private practice and his dodgy recommendations for presidential pardons during the Clinton administration.

Now, yet another Obama selection is under scrutiny. This time, it’s Mary L. Schapiro, who’s slated to head the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Schapiro is named in two lawsuits for making misleading statements to expedite the merger of the New York Stock Exchange’s and the NASD’s regulatory units. As a result of the merger, her pay also rose 57 percent, to over $3.1 million, the New York Times reported.

The Obama transition team said they were aware of the lawsuit and played it down. It said it would not have nominated Schapiro had they felt it might be a problem down the line.

Given the present economic climate, the next SEC chairperson is expected to get tougher on wayward Wall Street institutions, enforcing financial regulations and sniffing out potential Bernard Madoffs before they take off with more investors’ cash. Schapiro is ultimately expected get through the confirmation hearings and get the SEC job, but this could cast a pall over the proceedings.

Add to that the scrutiny Schapiro could also receive for failing to sniff out the Madoff scandal in her capacity as the head of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the watchdog that supervises nearly 5,000 U.S. brokerages.

Perhaps the Obama team needs an even tougher and more invasive vetting process than the one it already currently has. Or at the very least, they ought to read through every page of the applicants’ forms carefully, so that there won’t be unpleasant surprises later.

While the worst of the credit crunch might be over, as articulated by US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson in the hope of shoring up confidence in the battered US economy, the real indicator consumers should be watching is oil prices.

The economy has been flirting with disaster, no thanks to the credit crunch, which led to a housing slump and foreclosures nationwide, along with skyrocketing energy costs. With the credit crunch “closer to the end” than the beginning, as Paulson described to the media, energy costs remains the biggest worry for the economy.

But the pain of rising energy costs is not just felt at gas pumps, where prices have already crossed the psychological $4 a gallon line in some parts of the country.

With crude oil hitting just shy of $124 a barrel in trading today, and talk that it might go as high as $200 by the end of the year, the credit crunch might pale in comparison in the economic pain infliction category to the troubles that could be caused by ever-rising energy prices.

Energy costs will affect more people than the credit crunch could. We might not all take out risky mortgages but every part of our lives involves the use of energy in one form or another.

Besides the cars we drive or the public transportation we take, even basics like our food and clothes prices are affected by energy costs, due to the production and transportation costs of the food to our local supermarkets, and the clothes that have to be shipped from China or Vietnam. Manufacturing plants need to use massive amounts of energy to run their usually energy-intensive factories. Farmers need fuel to run their tractors. The airlines industry is powered by oil. The harder we work in producing all kinds of products, the higher the demand for energy and fossil fuels, and the steeper oil prices become. And countries with nothing other than the luck of the geographical draw benefit.

There really has to be a more concerted effort to look into developing alternative energy sources. For far too long, we have been held hostage to countries that supply us with oil and it is our own fault that we have not yet summoned the will to get out of that nasty scenario.

The oil is not going to be there forever. It will run out in the next few decades and the oil-producing nations know it. They are thus relentless now in holding down production and supply despite the ever-growing demand for more oil.

With gas prices going through the roof, people should summon the energy and will power to say “enough”. Now is the perfect time to want to do things differently and wean ourselves from the prison of oil dependence. We might just be willing to try out alternative sources of energy if there was enough leadership and initiative out there. Dare we hope that with a new administration in the White House next year, things might change and we will finally free ourselves of the shackles of oil dependency and all the political problems that are associated with it?

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Pundits can deride Microsoft for walking away from the hostile Yahoo takeover deal as much as they want, but Microsoft can heave a sigh of relief for dodging a bullet.

No, Steve Ballmer was not being all hat and no cattle, as some have labeled his action for withdrawing from the attempt to buy Yahoo after a three-month wrangle.

In the end, it was a smart move by Ballmer and the people at Microsoft.

AP photo

Basically, he listened to his shareholders and his people, who thought it was dumb to pay $47.5 billion for a second-rate also-ran company that did not know a good deal when it hit it in the face, and furthermore let its pride get in the way of its prospects. The fact that Microsoft’s stock declined on news of the unsolicited takeover offer should have been reason enough to convince Ballmer that investors did not think that the proposed deal was a good idea at all. It was a good thing that he pulled out before more damage could be done to Microsoft.

Talk about cheek. Yahoo was trading at an anemic under-$20 a share before Microsoft surprised the industry with its takeover offer in late January, boosting Yahoo’s share price to the high $20s thereafter.

At Microsoft’s $33 a share offer, Yahoo’s shareholders should be busy hiding its glee and just take the money. Instead, it stubbornly clung to the notion that its shares were “undervalued” by Microsoft’s offer and won’t stand for anything less than $37 a share.

Fat chance. Yahoo’s shares had not seen those heights in two years. On what basis would Microsoft justify paying that kind of money for Yahoo to its shareholders?

Yahoo co-founder Jerry Yang might have been playing chicken, in the hope that Microsoft would blink first and give them a few more dollars per share.

But Yang instead gave Ballmer the out that he was looking for to kill the ill-fated deal.

Now Yang and Yahoo’s board could face a flurry of investors’ suits, at their fury of Yahoo’s folly for rejecting the best deal it could have been offered.

Microsoft should just let this go and forget about going back to the table with Yahoo, despite rumors that this isn’t yet completely finished.

With the $47.5 billion price tag it was willing to pay, Microsoft should look to score a game-changing partnership, not one that would still play a distant second fiddle to Google. It really does not make sense to spend that massive kind of money buying a company that will not have the ability to knock Microsoft’s ultimate enemy out. Remember — eyes on the prize. If it has that kind of war chest to throw around, Microsoft should reach higher and get a truly innovative company or partnership that could break new ground or change the rules of the internet game.

Or it could use that kind of money on research and trend-spotting to get onto the next big wave in internet advertising, internet search or other kinds of networking trend. Microsoft is pretty unique among big technology firms for its substantial cash hoard and just think of the kind of innovations it could come up with, should the money be invested in the appropriate research and development.

Microsoft seems to be pursuing that approach now. Its chairman Bill Gates has just said the company is looking to go down an independent path. “We will make the advances that give people a great choice there,” he said, referring to internet search offering.

Microsoft does need to innovate to beat Google, which dominates internet advertising and search. But partnering Yahoo would not be the way to defeat Google. Microsoft would be better off going it alone, or finding a partner truly worthy of taking on Google. And Microsoft should hang on to its billions until the right deal and the company worth battling for comes along.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

With 44 percent of Americans telling a recent poll that rising gas prices is a serious economic concern, it is no wonder that the presidential candidates have weighed in on the issue.

But it would be a mistake to cave in to populism and enact a gas and diesel tax holiday, as proposed by both presumptive GOP nominee John McCain and Democratic hopeful Hillary Clinton. Only Barack Obama has refrained from jumping on the bandwagon, arguing that the idea is too flawed.

Both Clinton and McCain want the federal government to suspend the 18.4 cent-a-gallon federal gas tax and 24.4 cent diesel tax between Memorial Day and Labor Day, traditionally a peak travel period for American families. 

I myself will be doing a 2-week road trip this summer and should be enthusiastic about Clinton and McCain’s proposals, but it is a bad idea at the end of the day.

For one, the savings are small. Experts have calculated that the average driver would save about $2.35 at every trip to the pump, based on a 13-gallon full tank estimate.

But the fiscal hole caused by the gas tax holiday in the federal coffers would be considerable — to the tune of some $10 billion.

That means less investments in roads and infrastructure, at a time when heavier usage of roads and highways would presumably occur. Remember the deadly bridge collapse into the Mississippi River in Minneapolis last summer that took 13 lives and injured 100 others? There should be no compromise in the up-keep and repairs of infrastructure and we can ill-afford to gamble with chance as the nation’s roads and bridges get older.

The politicians have also forgotten to factor in another casualty should the gas tax suspension become reality: jobs. According to a US Transportation Department study, every $1 billion spent of federal highway investments helps support 34,779 jobs. Extrapolating from that, $10 billion in revenue lost to the federal government could mean 347,790 less jobs, if construction projects were halted or killed due to a lack of funding. While it might not ultimately hit that kind of numbers, it still looks like a substantial number of jobs could be lost due to the gas tax holiday. 

Finally, cutting the price of gas for the short-term would only make demand rise and gas prices to follow suit. If prices were artificially lowered this summer, consumers might drive more (not to mention the environmental consequences of that), causing demand to rise, which inevitably leads to higher prices. It would also fail to wean Americans off gas dependence, perpetuating the misery in the long term, making oil producers the only winners.

And after Labor Day, wouldn’t everybody get a rude shock at the 18.4 cent tax being put back in place?

It is election season and it might be clever politics to ease things like taxes. But pandering is short-term and myopic. McCain and Clinton would be better off thinking up more sensible policies that will take the US towards the long-term goal of energy independence rather than scoring small political points that has dire consequences in the long run. 

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Twenty years ago, air travel was exciting, fun and exotic.

Taking a plane to one’s destination was part of the journey and signaled the start of the vacation. People would dress well to board a plane. The flight attendants were courteous and helpful. Meals were not great, of course, but it was not the joke that it is now, if one even gets meal services on board these days.

Planes would take off on time and get to the designation on schedule, or at times, even early. The state of the airplanes’ interiors was usually immaculate, seats would recline smoothly and things on the plane actually worked.

Upon disembarkation, bags that were checked would show up at the designated carousel and the passenger goes off to continue with the business or vacation that the plane had pleasantly taken him to.

But of course, things are no longer these rosy scenarios anymore.

Air travel passengers nowadays are forced to start their journey hours before the time the plane is scheduled to depart, often having to arrive at least two hours ahead so that they could go through the chaotic scenes and long lines at the check-in counters, endure the mind-numbingly tedious process of airport security, stripping off jackets/ outerwear, shoes, belts, watches and what-nots, putting up with rude TSA officers and “random checks”, rushing to the gate, only to find that the flight is, inevitably, delayed.

Once the passenger is lucky enough to get on the plane, he might be trapped on the tarmac for easily half to an hour waiting for the plane’s turn to take-off, tolerate more surly service from the flight attendant who won’t give him a glass of water, cramped in a seat that was built for anorexic midgets.

Upon surviving the flight where one had to pay for a drink and meal, luggage retrieval could induce more blood pressure elevation as the passenger realizes that the checked luggage is lost.

Why do we endure the nightmare of air travel anymore?

Why has it become so painful?

Is there hope of things getting better any time soon?

Just recently, Delta and Northwest announced their merger and claim that they had to, in the face of higher oil prices and better weather more turbulence ahead for the industry. More airlines are reportedly following in their footsteps, such as United and Continental. 

But it does not look like mergers are the answers.

What benefits are there for passengers when there are fewer choices and fuller planes from reduced flights as airlines cut back duplication? Isn’t competition usually an incentive for lower prices and better service?

But with the mergers, prices are likely to go up while service could get worse. Passengers will soon be slapped with $25 surcharge for checking a second bag. What choices have they but to cough up and swallow the anger, since five out of the six major airlines are introducing it?

Mergers do not make for better in-flight service either. In fact, already substandard service by flight attendants might get worse as discontented employees feel more enraged by worse deals foisted on them from the mergers and their unions get more toothless, losing members’ benefits and pensions.

Flights are even less likely to be on schedule, as disgruntled pilots pay the companies back for the lousy deals and lower pay they might get after mergers by enacting legal work slow-downs and other industrial action. 

The state of air travel does not have to be such a disaster. US carriers could take a leaf from Asian carriers, who are constantly beating them in service, punctuality and price. Even with the heightened fears of terrorism, foreign airports put in place security checks that are a lot more discreet and hassle-free than those in US airports. Why not make flying less painful if it is possible?

Governments at all levels could also play a part by either building or upgrading more runways so that more planes can take off on time (bad for the environment, unfortunately), or stop airlines from cramming too many flights into existing airports, which make schedules impossible to keep and delays or cancellations the norm.

While the US works out an improvement in air travel, it is high time to revisit the introduction of a high-speed, efficient railway system that could serve as an alternative to flying.

Good models include the Swiss, French or Japanese systems. Those methods of traveling within the country are truly a breeze — show up at the station just a few minutes before the scheduled train, hop on and arrive in the middle of the destination city, not some outlying airport that requires a long drive to get to. The same way the will to build the nation’s systems of roads and freeways was summoned could be duplicated to create railways and tracks.

In the meantime, almost everybody has to fly one time or another, be it for leisure or business. It might not go back to the magical experience it used to be, but flying really does not have to remain in the sad state it has sunk to. Here’s another thought — if US airlines don’t shape up soon, the open-sky agreement that has just come into effect with Europe might make more travelers chose European carriers. Then, no amount of merger would be able to save them from their lousy business models or laughable lack of service standards. 

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Microsoft chief executive Steve Baller must hate to face “I told you so!” moments. Yet he had to endure one in a most public way yesterday.

Nobody out there really believes that the takeover of Yahoo was a good idea for Microsoft, so who was advising Microsoft again? It ought to demand the money it paid for advisory fees back.

But it seems like Steve Ballmer is only getting the full extent of the folly of Microsoft’s unsolicited $42.3 billion bid to buy Yahoo.

At a Seattle conference for Microsoft fans yesterday, Ballmer asked how many of them used Yahoo’s search pages as their main resource. Unsurprisingly, only a few souls raised their hands. What’s worse though, is that fewer of them use Yahoo than Microsoft’s own Windows Live search. Uh-oh.

(For the record, even Microsoft geeks favor Google. They responded that Google is the main search engine they use.)

Ballmer had the good humor to joke at the results of the unscientific survey of search engine use. “Wow! We offered 31 bucks a share,” he quipped.

Yes Ballmer and Microsoft, nothing like a reality check. They over-bid on a weak product. Bad move. Didn’t they notice that Microsoft’s stock fell discouragingly when news of the hostile takeover plans broke? Conversely, Yahoo’s shares surged following the news. Investors know.

Perhaps if Microsoft is still keen on swallowing Yahoo, it should work harder to get News Corporation in on the deal. The joint bid — which will plug in Myspace, fast becoming one of the most popular music downloading sites, besides being a successful social networking site for teenagers — makes better sense and looks like it could pose a stronger competition to Google.

Incidentally, Google’s better-than-expected results yesterday are not a good omen for Microsoft. Yahoo could cite Google’s healthy web advertising earnings as an example of the viability of web advertising and the potential it holds in that. Not that Yahoo has done particularly well in that area, of course, but it is the power of its potential to give Google a run for its money in the web advertising business, if the chips were properly aligned, that helps Yahoo strengthen its hand in the bargaining process.

Yahoo reports its earnings next week and analysts are not sanguine about them being anywhere as spectacular as Google’s.

Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt might have said that, “It is nice to be working with Yahoo, and we like them very much,” but there remains no way that besides the outsourcing experiment that Yahoo has done on its search advertising business with Google, the two could come together, due to anti-trust issues in the US and Europe.

Yahoo might go on fighting Microsoft’s offer but that is the best option it has. It still might not be a good deal for Microsoft to absorb Yahoo. But for Yahoo, Microsoft’s resources and its determination to take on and beat Google might be its only salvation in the long run.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain has said that economics isn’t his strong suit.

His economic policies speech on Tuesday in Pittsburgh shows why.

The bulk of his focus was on tax cuts, such as making permanent the income tax cuts introduced by George W. Bush, proposing the elimination of the alternative minimum tax and doubling the value of exemptions for dependents to $7,000 from $3,500. He also wants a simpler tax system.

AP photo

Sounds suspiciously like Reaganomics.

While he railed against the high salaries of Wall Street executives and called for tougher regulation, he proposed slashing corporate taxes to 25 percent from 35 percent, businesses be allowed to write off the cost of new equipment and technology from their taxes and tax credits for research and development.

The cost of all his proposed cuts? McCain says it would cost the Treasury $200 billion annually. The truth is probably closer to $400 billion, according to analysts.

To offset that, McCain has suggested cutting spending, such as getting rid of earmarked pork-barrel projects, economic growth and other savings in government programs such as reducing spending in Medicare’s prescription drug program.

Which are still unlikely to balance the budget, something he had often mentioned as a goal before.

In a populist measure, McCain called for a tax holiday on the 18.4 cent a gallon federal gas tax and 24.4 cents a gallon tax on diesel from this Memorial Day until Labor Day, which is a seriously bad idea.

Not only will that give a false sense of how much oil costs, it will not help the US lessen its extreme energy dependence on fossil fuels and love of gas-guzzling vehicles, which have contributed to much of the US’ geopolitical headaches in the first place.

Making gas cheaper would only encourage more people onto the roads, which also means more carbon dioxide emissions — didn’t McCain pledge to do more for the environment? The whole idea of those gas taxes is to have money to pay for the roads. But McCain’s proposal will only cause more wear and tear on roads and highways, while the revenue to upkeep them will be lost during that period. Fortunately, that proposal is unlikely to become reality.

McCain might be trying to assuage the perception that he is weak on economics and proving that he has plans to get things under control as the economic picture gets gloomier. But he ought to play up his abilities in national security and foreign policy more. That could get him a better shot at the White House.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Don’t believe it when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared that she is looking out for the concerns of American families in her maneuver to kill the free-trade agreement between the US and Colombia.

She is merely trying to hold the trade pact hostage while pushing the White House to come with a second economic stimulus package.

But in delaying the vote to ratify the trade pact, she is hurting the US economy and workers.

Consider this — the pact would immediately allow 80 per cent of US exports of consumer and industrial products to Colombia to be duty free, with the goal of all tariffs to be cut within ten years. This covers a cross section of the US economy, from farm exports such as beef, cotton, soybeans and wheat, to textiles, medical, scientific and heavy equipment.

Services like telecommunications would gain access to the Colombian market, and US suppliers could bid for Colombian government contracts, on a similar basis as Colombian companies.

The US currently has an Andean Trade Preference Agreement, which already allows many Colombian products to enter the US duty-free. It only makes sense to subject US goods to tariff-free export into the Colombian market with the bilateral trade pact and level the playing field for US companies. And if companies stayed in business and do better, workers benefit.

The Wall Street Journal cites Illinois-based heavy machinery company, Caterpillar Inc., as a company that could lose out if the trade pact was left to languish.

Cat sells off-highway trucks to the Colombians with a 15 per cent import tax or $200,000, but would have an edge in price if the trade pact was approved and tariffs were dropped. More crucially, Cat is in competition to export to the Latin American country other heavy equipment like motor graders with Canada. Incidentally, Canada is also in talks with the Colombians for a free-trade agreement and should that be concluded before the US-Colombia one gets passed, guess whose equipment will be cheaper to purchase for the Colombians?

“If Colombians don’t buy our tractors, they’ll buy them from Japan,” Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez warned. “If they don’t buy our wheat, they’ll buy it from Canada. And if they don’t buy our high-tech equipment, they’ll buy it from China.”

But beyond economic considerations, the FTA with Colombia is an important tool to show support for all the strides the Colombian president, Alvaro Uribe, has made in taking on violent crime and drug trafficking to stabilize the country.

Uribe has stuck his neck out to remain the region’s staunchest US ally, defying the tide of anti-US sentiments that had been swelling in many South American countries, led by Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. A yes vote for the trade pact would have been a strong show of support for a loyal ally. A no vote comes across as a “slap in the face” for the Colombians, its vice president had said. It could also curb US influence in an already tough neighborhood.

A bone of contention for the Democrats is that Colombia is not doing enough to fight the extra-judicial killings of unionists there. The Colombian government is by no means perfect on that record but the numbers have fallen from a peak of 196 in 2002, to last year’s 26. While it is still too many lives and families affected, it is a marked improvement.

Uribe has also turned Colombia’s economy around in the past five years, with his emphasis on reducing public debt, modest budgets and better security to lure investments. The approved pact would have been another boost to the economy.

The US has a lot to gain from the ratification of the US-Colombia FTA. Not doing so would not only hurt US-Colombia relations and US credibility, but most importantly, American companies and workers, subjecting them to tariffs and higher vulnerability of losing businesses to other countries eager to gain market share in the Colombian market. Unfortunately, the Democrats just don’t seem to get it.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

You have got to give Steve Ballmer props for the chutzpah to think big and be aggressive.

So Yahoo turned down Microsoft’s takeover offer.

No problem, Ballmer is cutting off Yahoo’s options by reaching out to one of its potential white knights, New Corporation, instead.

Word has leaked that Microsoft is talking to News Corp to hammer out a plan to jointly take over Yahoo.

Now, that is a brilliant move by Ballmer.

While the talks between Microsoft and News Corp are still at a “sensitive stage” according to the New York Times, think of the scale of that tie-up if it does come to pass.

Microsoft’s MSN network, together with News Corp’s MySpace, and Yahoo’s search engine. It could be a strong company that would be a worthy competitor to Google, the undisputed cyberspace king.

News Corp had been keen to talk to Yahoo as a potential savior and help it fight Microsoft’s absorption. But after some early enthusiasm, News Corp had decided that it cannot fight Microsoft’s war chest. If it comes to an agreement with Microsoft to team up to buy Yahoo, Yahoo would have one less white knight it could turn to for help to escape Microsoft’s grasp.

A Microsoft-News Corp partnership also potentially means a higher bid, something that Yahoo had insisted was its bug bear with Microsoft’s $44.6 billion offer. If the amount was raised, Yahoo’s management will find themselves hard-pressed to resist and unable to answer to shareholders if it once again spurned the boys in Seattle.

No one else would even dare to counter offer, or be mad enough to go into a bidding war against the Microsoft and News Corp giants. Which means Yahoo will have to be a reluctant bride.

But Yahoo is fighting back. It has just announced a temporary advertising tie-up with Google. Under the deal, Google will be place ads alongside search results on Yahoo’s website. The pilot would find out if Yahoo could get more ad revenue if it outsourced its advertising to Google.

The two-week trial, Yahoo said, does not mean that it would lead to a partnership with Google. Analysts agree that there are very slim chances for a Yahoo-Google tie-up due to anti-trust issues, but it would be a good opportunity for Yahoo to prove that Microsoft’s unsolicited bid is undervaluing the company.

“We do not think a broader or longer-term Yahoo/Google search partnership would pass regulatory muster,” reckons a Standard & Poor’s note to clients, obtained by the Financial Times. “Nonetheless, we believe such a deal suggests that Yahoo is less likely to accept Microsoft’s current offer.”

Yahoo still has about three weeks left to accept Microsoft’s original offer before Microsoft gets tougher, but has refused to negotiate unless Microsoft sweetens its deal. It might be sweating a little more, now that News Corp seems to have gone over to the enemy’s side.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::