MORE:
MORE: twitter: # craigslist: the ebay 16 million deal! valleywag had the right figure Jim Buckmaster finally talks -- 'cause he *has to* http://bit.ly/5FZQL1 4 minutes ago from web
and to think that Valleywag got the number right! 16 million...
"Buckmaster said eBay paid $16 million, which included the rights-of-first-refusal over any sale of Buckmaster's and Newmark's shares and veto rights over mergers and acquisitions."
(2nd part of 2nd paragraph from bottom)
Craig got a house probably worth in the millions that summer... aka "the shack"! *lol*
Delia
P.S. more recent post by Valleywag D.
Showing posts with label ebay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ebay. Show all posts
Monday, December 7, 2009
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
(Craig's story blows up) what if craigslist didn't "dilute" ebay in a legal sense?
doesn't matter what it's called... (the contradiction remains) D.
(Mozilla helper: (Craig's story blows up) what if craigslist didn't "dilute" ebay in a legal sense? )
(Mozilla helper: (Craig's story blows up) what if craigslist didn't "dilute" ebay in a legal sense? )
Saturday, May 17, 2008
craigslist's response to ebay's complaint: pretty much meaningless
boilerplate... (1st comment by Hedda) D.
Delia
P.S. I did take a quick look at some reports and got disappointed quickly (e.g. Associated Press: last line: "ebay, owns a 28% stake in craigslist?" what? how clueless is that? ebay bought 28.4 % back in 2004, got diluted to just above 25% in 2005 and subsequently further diluted to under 25% -- if AP doesn't get this, they have no business reporting on this story... pretty sad...) D.
Delia
P.S. I did take a quick look at some reports and got disappointed quickly (e.g. Associated Press: last line: "ebay, owns a 28% stake in craigslist?" what? how clueless is that? ebay bought 28.4 % back in 2004, got diluted to just above 25% in 2005 and subsequently further diluted to under 25% -- if AP doesn't get this, they have no business reporting on this story... pretty sad...) D.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
(ebay and craigslist) alright... the fight is on!
errata (please read!) the complaint does NOT claim that calling kijiji "craigslist killer" violated the trademark (at least not specificaly, there is some vague language towards the end but nothing specific). So what made me think that? the article! :(4th paragraph) " Craigslist accuses eBay of calling Kijiji a 'Craigslist killer' inside the company and using the Craigslist moniker to confuse the public and 'illegally divert' Internet traffic from Craigslist to eBay and the Kijiji site." --> they should have really explained how the traffic diversion was accomplished, otherwise it stands to reason that it was the result of calling kijiji a "craigslist killer" --> this was NOT done just inside the company, the press used it at the time also... alright! I need to ignore the articles and just go to the source when that is an option... D.
...
craigslist counter sues... some of their claims sound perfectly ridiculous! how could calling kijiji a "craigslist killer" violate their trademark? what kind of confusion could that create? who in their right mind would think... it's the same company! by the same ridiculous idea, there could be no "craigslist watch" (or "craigslist criticism" for that matter...); way to let the judge know who he is dealing with...
Delia
P.S. Jim does little more than give the laundry list of complaints this time...
P.P.S. right Jim! it was so "unfair and unlawful" that you did nothing about it until ebay sued you... D.
...
craigslist counter sues... some of their claims sound perfectly ridiculous! how could calling kijiji a "craigslist killer" violate their trademark? what kind of confusion could that create? who in their right mind would think... it's the same company! by the same ridiculous idea, there could be no "craigslist watch" (or "craigslist criticism" for that matter...); way to let the judge know who he is dealing with...
Delia
P.S. Jim does little more than give the laundry list of complaints this time...
P.P.S. right Jim! it was so "unfair and unlawful" that you did nothing about it until ebay sued you... D.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
(ebay and craigslist) Kettles and Pots?
... sounds like an admission of having been bad, doesn't it? (the title of the entry implies -- ... yeah, we did the darn thing! ... we were bad... but... you know what? so was ebay! (back in 2004) so there!...
Delia
P.S. oops! did Jim really mean to say that? sounds pretty dumb... D.
Delia
P.S. oops! did Jim really mean to say that? sounds pretty dumb... D.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Craig's story blows up... to smithereens!
EVEN MORE: Matthew,I'm just curious... how do you suppose ebay got more than 25% of craigslist? that wasn't Craig's / craigslist's story was it? Delia
why on earth aren't people pointing this out? I mean, The New York Times, Reuters, Associated Press... they must have noticed the difference, no? D.
little detail: ebay hasn't *always* claimed they got 28.4 % (which is closer to 30% than 25%) , they initially claimed it was "approximately 25%" (ebay press release at the time), which fit Craig's/craigslist's story. I find it intriguing that according to the complaint, Craig&Jim diluted ebay to 25.01% (which definitely qualifies as "approximately 25%" as ebay initially said...) D.
just to clarify: according to ebay's complaint, craigslist did subsequent dilutions of ebay's share of craigslist: the dilution to 25.01% came about in 2005 when employees were given stock options(top of 2nd page with a footnoted eplanation); further dilution to under 25% happened more recently and prompted ebay's law suit.
MORE: Thanks for commenting, Anonymous! I didn't publish it because I really think we need to wait and see... watch the fight :)... hear everybody out... who knows, a miracle might happen *lol* (as I was saying, it should be pretty entertaining...) D.
(almost) all details -- parts are redacted -- in full glory...
Delia
P.S. it should be very entertaining to see the fallout of all this ...:) D.
why on earth aren't people pointing this out? I mean, The New York Times, Reuters, Associated Press... they must have noticed the difference, no? D.
little detail: ebay hasn't *always* claimed they got 28.4 % (which is closer to 30% than 25%) , they initially claimed it was "approximately 25%" (ebay press release at the time), which fit Craig's/craigslist's story. I find it intriguing that according to the complaint, Craig&Jim diluted ebay to 25.01% (which definitely qualifies as "approximately 25%" as ebay initially said...) D.
just to clarify: according to ebay's complaint, craigslist did subsequent dilutions of ebay's share of craigslist: the dilution to 25.01% came about in 2005 when employees were given stock options(top of 2nd page with a footnoted eplanation); further dilution to under 25% happened more recently and prompted ebay's law suit.
MORE: Thanks for commenting, Anonymous! I didn't publish it because I really think we need to wait and see... watch the fight :)... hear everybody out... who knows, a miracle might happen *lol* (as I was saying, it should be pretty entertaining...) D.
(almost) all details -- parts are redacted -- in full glory...
Delia
P.S. it should be very entertaining to see the fallout of all this ...:) D.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
(ebay and craigslist) ebay's side of the story
why isn't the press getting ebay's side of the story?... most articles let Jim have the last word...
found one exception
Reuters: (10th paragraph) An eBay spokeswoman said the disputed board actions concerned "corporate governance issues" and did not involve Kijiji. (this appears to be countering some of Jim's wild speculation)
Delia
P.S. Gina's article is not bad overall but she appears to be under Craig/craigslist's spell (like a whole lot of other female reporters... and not only female): (4th paragraph) "Craig Newmark, who runs the company in a famously open-minded style"--> this is a subjective, personal, take on things... (not an objective observation) so it really has no purpose in a report like this... (except to embarrass the writer... and the wire service...) D.
(Mozilla helper: (ebay and craigslist) ebay's side of the story)
found one exception
Reuters: (10th paragraph) An eBay spokeswoman said the disputed board actions concerned "corporate governance issues" and did not involve Kijiji. (this appears to be countering some of Jim's wild speculation)
Delia
P.S. Gina's article is not bad overall but she appears to be under Craig/craigslist's spell (like a whole lot of other female reporters... and not only female): (4th paragraph) "Craig Newmark, who runs the company in a famously open-minded style"--> this is a subjective, personal, take on things... (not an objective observation) so it really has no purpose in a report like this... (except to embarrass the writer... and the wire service...) D.
(Mozilla helper: (ebay and craigslist) ebay's side of the story)
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
comic relief: (ebay and craigslist) funny thing is...
...that shaving 10% off the original 28.4% share does bring ebay much closer to ... the approximately 25% they initially said they got! (25.56%) -- actually, it would be even closer if they would give just a tinny little bit more back... *lol*
Delia
P.S. jokes aside, was this a coincidence or did craigslist plan it all along? (after the "changes" ebay's story and craigslist's story pretty much agree... if ebay would have just shut up... there would have been nothing on hand to question craigslist's story -- was craigslist counting on this?)
Delia
P.S. jokes aside, was this a coincidence or did craigslist plan it all along? (after the "changes" ebay's story and craigslist's story pretty much agree... if ebay would have just shut up... there would have been nothing on hand to question craigslist's story -- was craigslist counting on this?)
(ebay and craigslist) did ebay have an understanding with craigslist that it had to break in order to sue?
(to present the number of shares they acquired so that it could neatly fit craigslist's story):
is this the "hostility" Jim talks about?
ebay's press release on the deal back in 2004 said they acquired approximately 25% (which was unnecessarily imprecise, appearing to have served no other purpose than to support craigslist's story...)
Delia
P.S. ebay is currently saying the actual figure was really 28.4%...(closer to 30% than 25%) which implicitly brings Craig's story into question --> again, shortly after the deal Craig said ebay had ONLY 25% (and craigslist had said this was the percentage the former shareholder sold to ebay)
is this the "hostility" Jim talks about?
ebay's press release on the deal back in 2004 said they acquired approximately 25% (which was unnecessarily imprecise, appearing to have served no other purpose than to support craigslist's story...)
Delia
P.S. ebay is currently saying the actual figure was really 28.4%...(closer to 30% than 25%) which implicitly brings Craig's story into question --> again, shortly after the deal Craig said ebay had ONLY 25% (and craigslist had said this was the percentage the former shareholder sold to ebay)
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
(valleywag): come on Owen, you can do much better than that...
MORE
...
I know you can:) -- do some more digging of your own, will you?
Delia
P.S. netvet has a great hint for you!
P.P.S. you also appear to have missed Craig talking about monetization! as just being in tension with "community feel" (3.42) --> whatever happened with "we are a community service and only do what the community asks as to do?" D.
...
I know you can:) -- do some more digging of your own, will you?
Delia
P.S. netvet has a great hint for you!
P.P.S. you also appear to have missed Craig talking about monetization! as just being in tension with "community feel" (3.42) --> whatever happened with "we are a community service and only do what the community asks as to do?" D.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Ebay overtakes craigslist? no so fast...
EVEN MORE: looks like they are hiding the numbers of ads everywhere now... -- this is a good example of why you need to know how craigslist is changing to understand what is going on; they were completely transparent in this respect earlier on -- you could see these numbers in all cities and all categories... by now...it's the opposite!).
MORE: I think the best way to judge who's ahead is to compare the number of paying ads --> looks like Craig (of Jim or whoever it was) figured this out early on because the number of ads in a place are hidden once they start charging --> doesn't mean you can't find it out -- it's just more work...) D.
....
they may well have the traffic, but they haven't made the transition to asking for the money -- THAT'S the tricky part... craigslist has successfully done that in 2 categories and keeps adding cities to the pay list (for jobs, as of now...)
Delia
P.S. also, comparing ebay-properties traffic and craigslist traffic (at this point, when they are not asking for money), may not say much -- I suspect a good part of their traffic in the US is just duplicate ads that are also on craigslist...(abroad may be less the case) D.
MORE: I think the best way to judge who's ahead is to compare the number of paying ads --> looks like Craig (of Jim or whoever it was) figured this out early on because the number of ads in a place are hidden once they start charging --> doesn't mean you can't find it out -- it's just more work...) D.
....
they may well have the traffic, but they haven't made the transition to asking for the money -- THAT'S the tricky part... craigslist has successfully done that in 2 categories and keeps adding cities to the pay list (for jobs, as of now...)
Delia
P.S. also, comparing ebay-properties traffic and craigslist traffic (at this point, when they are not asking for money), may not say much -- I suspect a good part of their traffic in the US is just duplicate ads that are also on craigslist...(abroad may be less the case) D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)