John Battelle has a fascinating interview with Microsoft's general counsel, Brad Smith. Smith talks about why the US government should investigate Google's purchase of Doubleclick. Battelle gives additional background around the price that Google paid and the fact that the sale price was not the highest price paid.
why didn't Microsoft match Google's $3.1 billion offer. Smith would not comment on this, but I can report from very good sources that in fact the company did offer to match it, and was willing to pay even more to insure that Google did not corner the online ad market. But for whatever reasons, the private equity firm that owned the majority of DoubleClick's shares decided to go with Google. I have more detail on how that deal went back and forth - it involves a no shop deal between Google and Doubleclick, for example, but I have heard strong assertions that the owners of DoubleClick did not get the highest and best price for their asset.
Battelle's last paragraph of his post is also important to consider:
If the deal does go through, it will create an entirely new landscape for Google's competitors, one that will require, in my mind, that Yahoo, Microsoft, and other large players consider moves that previously were unsavory. To my mind, the most obvious of these moves is a strong partnership or even merger between Yahoo and Microsoft
A merger between Microsoft and Yahoo! would be a gigantic shift in the Internet industry. Fascinating that this acquisition might force such moves.
The discussion thread below the post is quite interesting too.
Was stock a component of either offer? I haven't read the article yet, but in public M&A form of consideration and the valuation thereof can be very important - and not entirely objective.