a milano hanno delle espressioni idiomatiche per questo genere di cose…
Schmidt: Again, to help you along, I believe that they were worth $600 million to $700 million.
Baskin: And am I correct that you were asking your board to approve an acquisition price of $1.65 billion; correct?
Schmidt: I did.
Baskin: I’m not very good at math, but I think that would be $1 billion or so more than you thought the company was, in fact, worth.
Schmidt: That is correct.
Baskin: Can you tell us what reasoning you explained?
Schmidt: Sure, this is a company with very little revenue, growing quickly with user adoption, growing much faster than Google Video, which was the product that Google had. And they had indicated to us that they would be sold, and we believed that there would be a competing offer–because of who Google was–paying much more than they were worth. In the deal dynamics, the price, remember, is not set by my judgment or by financial model or discounted cash flow. It’s set by what people are willing to pay. And we ultimately concluded that $1.65 billion included a premium for moving quickly and making sure that we could participate in the user success in YouTube.
A questo si aggiunga che Viacom ha una causa da 1Bn con Google per incitamento alla pirateria e adesso avrebbe delle email che dimostrerebbero che YT sapeva che c’era materiale piratato ma preferiva non toglierlo.
Did Viacom find smoking gun in YouTube case? | Media Maverick – CNET News.
addition, internal YouTube e-mails indicate that YouTube managers knew
and discussed the existence of unauthorized content on the site with
employees but chose not to remove the material, three sources with
knowledge of the case told CNET.
..online services a measure of protection from liability for
infringing materials uploaded to their sites–as long as they meet a
certain criteria, including:
- (A)(i) The services don’t have actual knowledge that the
material, or an activity using the material on the system or network,
- (ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts
or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
- (iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material.
The entertainment industry has been skeptical about YouTube’s claims
that it did not have knowledge of the once-plentiful amounts of
infringing content available on the site. Clips from popular TV shows,
feature films, or sports events would often bubble up in YouTube’s Most
Viewed or Most Discussed sections.