Time Warner Inc. (TWX)

All Comments on TWX

  • commenter
    Tony M
    Sep 26 12:40 PM
    Yahoo Email Still Dominates Online Email Peers [view article]
    How come Microsoft Hotmail is only on one of the charts and yet it ranks higher than most others? Reply
  • commenter
    jack dee
    Sep 26 12:29 PM
    Yahoo Email Still Dominates Online Email Peers [view article]


    DOES ANYONE proof read?? ANYONE???????


    you have excluded MSFT from comment and charts at the top of the story?
    MSFT gets pushed down to "among the findings"

    It is clear whoever wrote this just wanted to talk about Yhoo and goog , AOL and MSFT just get in the way of the story.

    Why not go the whole hog and just exclude anything that is not based in the valley.

    what a load of old bollocks










    Reply
  • commenter
    boyishprince
    Sep 26 10:03 AM
    My Website
    Yahoo Email Still Dominates Online Email Peers [view article]
    I love the new Yahoo! Mail version, it's the best by far!! Certainly now Yahoo! Mail doesn't have any storage limits anymore. Reply
  • commenter
    Tom B
    Sep 26 09:57 AM
    Yahoo Email Still Dominates Online Email Peers [view article]
    Some of us have been using Yahoo mail since before Gmail existed. I like Gmail more, but not ENOUGH more to make it may main account. Reply
  • commenter
    Sean H.
    Sep 25 08:14 AM
    Valueclick: Great Business with Tough Competition [view article]
    Great article! Some interesting additional info on VCLK and their seemingly very valuable patents in another article here yesterday.

    Back in June, I wrote an article titled Why AOL’s “Platform A” May Not Make the Grade. The article discussed a series of changes being made by AOL to position itself as the world’s largest and most effective advertising network, building on its industry-leading Advertising.com network and the recent acquisitions of TACODA, Third Screen Media, Lightningcast, Adtech, Quigo and Bebo, collectively purchased for about $1.5 billion dollars (according to a recent interview with Lynda Clarizio, President of Platform A.) This realignment marked the final stage in AOL's transition from an access business to a global, ad-supported web company.

    This new entity, Platform A, says it is offering advertisers access to the most sophisticated targeting and measurement tools available in the marketplace across Platform A's unmatched network of third-party sites, as well as AOL's owned and operated sites. According to comScore Media Metrix, Platform A is said to already reach more than 90% of the domestic online audience. Platform A builds on the success of Advertising.com, which operates the largest third-party display network, and integrates behavioral targeting leader TACODA, Third Screen Media, which operates the largest mobile media network, market leading video ad serving platform Lightningcast, and ADTECH's global ad serving platform.

    Previously, I pointed out that I believed a possible material weakness existed in Platform A, one that had the potential to impact its entire structural integrity. That weakness is a lawsuit in which Modavox, (MDVX.OB) a small Phoenix Arizona based company, is suing Tacoda for patent infringement. I believe these patents were issued in 2002 (an interesting date as you will note below in relation to Be Free’s purchase by ValueClick (VCLK)) and 2007 respectively. Their issuance calls into question just who owns the behavioral targeting technology Platform A is both leveraging and dependent on for the monetization of its entire business plan.

    Despite the suit having been filed prior to the actual closing of the Tacoda acquisition, AOL management apparently dismissed its relevance and proceeded to close the acquisition for a reported $275 million. Could this prove to have been a costly mistake for Time Warner (TWX) shareholders? If it’s proven that this little company does in fact own the patented technology that AOL thought they were buying with the purchase of Tacoda, then one must certainly wonder if this costly mistake could serve as cause for a potential shareholder action? Interestingly enough, in the legal section of Time Warner’s last filing, I saw little to no mention of this issue disclosed within.

    Perhaps AOL’s management and Lynda Clarizio aren’t concerned about Modavox’s patent infringement suit? In my last articlem I posed the question “what happens if they lose this suit and can’t use Tacoda technology anymore?” Perhaps they view this as just one isolated suit by a little guy trying to cash in? Don’t be so sure. Enter ValueClick.

    According to MediaPost, ValueClick has previously filed and settled lawsuits against Blue Lithium and Revenue Science for patent infringement on the general principles of behavioral targeting. Now, ValueClick has filed a similar infringement lawsuit against Tacoda. The patents at issue, one issued in 1998 and the other 1999, both deal with creating behavioral profiles of web users.

    Ian Lee wrote a nice article containing some interesting commentary called “The End of Behavioral Targeting as we know it” Interestingly, he comments that in 2002, ValueClick acquired Be Free in a deal valued at $128 million. Many had long wondered why the high price tag was paid for Be Free hot on the heals of the Internet bust. Six years later, the real reason for the high price tag has become very clear. The real value in Be Free wasn’t its affiliate platform but the two behavioral targeting patents that it holds, the same two patents they are now leveraging against Tacoda.

    One must assume ValueClick views these patents as far more valuable today than the $128 million they paid for them six years ago. It’s likely anyone seeking to acquire those same patents now could expect to pay a multiple of their original sales price. Perhaps AOL’s purchase of Tacoda for $275 million might be a good starting point, or the $300 million Yahoo (YHOO) paid for Blue Lithium. Wait, does either of those companies even own any patented technology for behavioral marketing or targeting? Based on ValueClick’s already settling with Blue Lithium and Revenue Science, and both Modavox and ValueClick going after Tacoda, it would appear not.

    So ValueClick owns two patents and Modavox owns two patents (with a couple more rumored to be pending), all seemingly critical to the process of behavioral targeting and marketing. According to David Morgan, Founder of Tacoda, behavioral marketing could jump from $700 million last year to about $10 billion in 2013 making the stakes very high. Both companies are currently suing Tacoda, owned by AOL, for patent infringement through the alleged use of their respective patented technology. Are these patents enforceable, they certainly appear to be. Are they valuable, again they appear to be. But what is the difference between the ValueClicks and the Modavox patents? Ah yes, the million dollar question!

    To the best of my understanding, ValueClicks patents acquired for $128 million in 2002 are again related to creating behavioral profiles of web users. It would appear they involve the process of gathering data which then may be used to better target the consumer via online advertising. Modavox’s patents on the other hand relate to the customization of content or what you do with the data once acquired.

    In other words, when companies like Tacoda and perhaps even ValueClick procure the information, it appears that it’s Modavox’s patented technology which allows the actual advertisement to be tailored to the consumer based on that data. So perhaps ValueClick owns the front end of the behavioral marketing process while Modavox appears to own the back end. This begs the question “what is the all the behavioral data in the world worth if you can’t monetize it through custom tailoring of advertisements?”

    It also begs the question if AOL acquired Modavox, would this potentially help them in their suit with ValueClick? Just a few of the question I’d love to ask Mr. Falco and Ms. Clarizio.

    As we see a continued proliferation of advertisers shifting their ad spend online, advertisers will continue to seek and demand that their message has a reasonable chance of reaching their intended target audience. Gone are the days when advertisers will accept the old “Spray and Prey” methodology of online advertising. It is valuable patented behavioral technologies like those owned by both Modavox and ValueClick, which facilitate this all important process.

    Again, until this important question of just who the rightful owner of this important technology is. I expect Platform A will continue to fail to make the grade.

    Reply
  • commenter
    billp37
    Sep 24 10:59 PM
    My Website
    Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [view article]
    "Dear American:
    I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude.

    I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America. My country has had crisis that has caused the need for large transfer of funds of 800 billion dollars US. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most profitable to you.

    I am working with Mr. Phil Gram, lobbyist for UBS, who will be my replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January. As a Senator, you may know him as the leader of the American banking deregulation movement in the 1990s. This transaction is 100% safe.

    This is a matter of great urgency. We need a blank check. We need the funds as quickly as possible. We cannot directly transfer these funds in the names of our close friends because we are constantly under surveillance. My family lawyer advised me that I should look for a reliable and trustworthy person who will act as a next of kin so the funds can be transferred.

    Please reply with all of your bank account, IRA and college fund account numbers and those of your children and grandchildren to wallstreetbailout@trea... so that we may transfer your commission for this transaction. After I receive that information, I will respond with detailed information about safeguards that will be used to protect the funds.

    Yours Faithfully Minister of Treasury Paulson"     Reply
  • commenter
    axelrod608
    Sep 24 03:42 PM
    Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [view article]
    Au contraire. This IS a bailout of Wall St. We have perfectly good bankruptcy courts. We could add a couple dozen more judges and handle this in the way the system is set up to handle it.

    Lehman is back in business, at least the part that was bought and reopened. 10,000 employees are back at work. The ONLY reason Wall St insiders and the legislators are conspiring to use the taxpayers to avoid bankruptcy is to maintain as many of the lucrative jobs as possible for the folks who created this mess.

    Who wins ? New York city and state depend heavily on finco tax receipts. But those are in the toilet regardless - you gotta make money to pay taxes. Shareholders of the many insolvent finco's get at least some of their investment protected by bailing out failed businesses.

    Who loses ? Let's see the hands of every taxpayer who honestly believes that this sale of assets will produce a profit and the gummint will send us all a big check and a thank you note for letting us use our money for the bailout. Seeing no hands raised, I can say that this plan IS sophisticated and expected. I would have expected no less from the administration of George II.

    The Patriot Act was a scam. The Iraq war was/is a scam. This is a scam. The only way a con game can work is if the mark has confidence in the scammer. Do you really have any confidence whatsoever that this group of people can fix this problem ? I spend hours a day reading, investigating, investing and trying to synthesize what's going on into understandable, credible theses. This one doesn't make any sense whatsoever except if you view it from an insider's game to preserve the status quo. On that level, it makes perfect sense.

    We are all going to pay dearly for the fraudulent excess that got our financial markets into this mess. Do we really want to leave the same folks in charge ?     Reply
  • commenter
    Elliot
    Miller
    Sep 24 02:38 PM
    Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [view article]
    The acrimony and nastiness of some of these posts is disappointing and unsophisticated. This is not a bailout of Wall Street. The owners of Fannie, Freddy, Bear, AIG and Lehman certainly don't feel bailed out. Their ownership interests are worthless. This is simply preserving the financial system, the owners of CDSs, many of which are foreign central banks on which we rely to hold our debt, and the ability of average Americans to get a mortgage or a car loan. Reply
  • commenter
    woodsey
    Sep 24 02:23 PM
    Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [view article]
    We have to depend on Congress to put the bailout on firm footing. But is congress equal to the task? Can they even be trusted? Congress started the thing. In 1980 congress (rep-dem) passed a law that effectively overrode state anti-usury laws (like here in takes us). This was the signal from the government that greed is OK. From there on it was laisser-faire (rep-dem); regulation is bad. Woodsey Reply
  • commenter
    axelrod608
    Sep 24 02:03 PM
    Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [view article]
    Reprint it antwhere. Get the word out. This crisis is a CREDIT crisis. Period. The only way Wall St could bloat their leverage is by using the tsunami of liquidity that Greenspin flooded the nation with to make idiotic "investments"...

    Fixing a credit problem with more credit and more liquidity is like taking the AA meeting to the tavern for happy hour. Then again what should we expect from a proposed solution made by one of the chief architects of the problem, Hank Paulson.

    The reason why banks aren't loaning money to one another is simple - THEY know their competitors are insolvent and unable to pay the loans back. That's why they want the government to provide the loans.

    As for the critics that claim not doing anything will result in another depression, prove it.

    Japan had a similar problem 19 years ago. They bailed out the banks with massive amounts of government funds. And today, 18 years later, you can still buy real estate and stocks there for half or less than 19 years ago.

    Pouring more money into the US financial sector at this point is like pouring more liquor into the punchbowl after half the guests have already passed out. It makes no economic sense. No logical sense. No political sense. But it would preserve the jobs of thousands of idiot financiers who created this mess.

    Do we really want to keep these folks at work in the financial sector ?     Reply
  • commenter
    Fairness
    Sep 24 01:48 PM
    My Website
    Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [view article]
    Recycled.
    The obscene executive compensation payments are major part of the problem, as it was exposed by this financial crisis as outright fraud.
    Generally speaking, no executive is worth getting paid more then the ultimate CEO, the US president.
    No one, no matter how clever or educated, should be allowed to rob their employees and shareholders as shamelessly as the executives do nowadays. The irony of it is, it's all done legally, under the regulators' watchful eye; highway robbery nevertheless. That needs to stop, in the name of fairness, and in order for the investor to regain confidence in our financial structure and business concept.
    Since companies cannot do it themselves, Congress needs to cap executive compensation by law at about the US president's salary level, and index it for inflation. At the very least, executive pay maximums should be tied to a reasonable multiplier of their lowest paid employees’ compensation. If we don't want people to revolt against being robbed by the government too (read heavily taxed) in order to bail out these shameless executive thieves, and keep them doing more of the same, Congress needs to act now. Not until some sort of cap is implemented, we shall see abuses and excesses disappear.
    Reply
  • commenter
    bernie bicoy
    Sep 24 01:41 PM
    My Website
    Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [view article]
    Has it occured to anyone there is a much simpler way out of this mess than bailing out ''Investment Banks'' (brokerage firms) that created the mess with $700 billion?

    If, as Paulson and Bernanke assert, if they aren't bailed out money will not be available to make consumer and business loans, then why not make the $700 billion available for traditional banks (i.e. FDIC banks that existed BEFORE Wall Street ''Investment Banks'' were created by the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act).

    According to the FDIC chairman traditional banks are in fairly good shape. If so, then make the $700 billion available as 'emergency loan funds' at, say, half of the fed discount window rate so the banks can make the loans that Paulson and Bernanke are worried will collpase the economic level of activity.

    The traditional banks could also, if they want, cherry pick the Investment Banks mortgage portfolios, and buy them at a price determined by the banks, and not by the government or the Investment Banks, both of which are likely to be way too high.

    Then let the Wall Street probably-should-have-s... ''Investment Banks'' deal with the mortgage securities no one wants, and deal with the FBI.

    Bernie Bicoy
    Reply
  • commenter
    martinj
    Sep 24 01:38 PM
    Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [view article]
    Call it what it is: The Mussolini Plan--all three pages. I am in charge.There is no time to waste or we are all lost. And please no peeking. There are no details because it is only 700 billion--and if we need more, we'll just take it
    See you at the forum...
    martinj     Reply
  • commenter
    GregY
    Sep 24 01:03 PM
    My Website
    Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [view article]
    Axelrod, I hope you don't mind a full copy your comment to be published on my blog. It's just that I couldn't express it better myself. Thanks you. Reply
  • commenter
    jack dee
    Sep 24 12:52 PM
    Yahoo's Board Approves Talks with Time Warner On Future of AOL [view article]
    Calling Yahoo a Web 1.0 company to support your view is rubbish.
    Enough of this web 2.0 BS. Companies should not be placed in such silly little boxes.

    (long goog msft and out of Yhoo with profits. )     Reply
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links: