Court Exhibit·23 MAR 2007
When a Rival Bids, Your Build Plan Becomes a Buy Decision
A build-it-yourself plan is only valid until a competitor's checkbook makes the timeline irrelevant.
Source document — Project Liberty — Board Update on Proposed DoubleClick Acquisition (March 23, 2007) · United States v. Google LLC (Ad Tech) · 1:23-cv-00108 (VAED), Trial Ex. PTX0015 — DOJ public archive (page 1)
Excerpt · In David Drummond's own words
Dear Board Members: I wanted to give you a heads-up about EMG's decision to enter the process to acquire DoubleClick, a leading online ad serving company owned by the private equity firms of Hellman & Friedman and JMI Equity (the transaction is codenamed Project Liberty). As some of you know, we have been interested in this company for some time, but have been pursuing a 'build-it-ourselves' strategy. Our interest became more acute after learning that Microsoft has already made a serious offer. The team believes that this is an important transaction for us, for both offensive and defensive reasons.
We have heard from reliable sources that Microsoft has made a bid in the $1.88 to $2.08 range. This weekend we plan to make a competitive bid by means of a non-binding term sheet/indication of interest.
Google's Rationale for Acquiring DoubleClick: Own DoubleClick's customer footprint to accelerate time to market for our own advertiser and publisher ad serving products. Acquisition of DoubleClick by Microsoft would make it very challenging for us to win customers for our own advertiser ad server, which would impair our opportunities in the brand ad market.
Microsoft's Potential Rationale for Acquiring DoubleClick: Access remnant inventory from DoubleClick's publisher ad server customer base to quickly scale its ad network. Use DoubleClick's advertiser ad server position to harm Yahoo!'s business, driving down its valuation ahead of a potential acquisition.
The daily letter · Free
This edition is for members — but the daily letter is free.
One real corporate email, and the lesson it teaches, in your inbox every weekday morning. Free. Unsubscribe in one click.
How this surfaced
- Source type
- Court Exhibit
- Case / record
- United States v. Google LLC (Ad Tech)
- Citation
- 1:23-cv-00108 (VAED), Trial Ex. PTX0015 — DOJ public archive
- Date authored
- March 23, 2007
- License
- Public domain
- Original
- View the primary source →
Don ·Google ·14 MAR 2023
Bundle Deals Across Divisions to Save a Weak Position
When one business unit can't justify the check alone, stack the strategic value across the whole company — or lose the partner entirely.
Karen Aviram Beatty & Lawrence Koh ·Google ·11 DEC 2019
Bundling Deals Can Backfire When Your Counterparty Wants Simplicity
When you stack asks to justify a payment, the other side sees complexity — and offers you a simpler exit.
Johan Heurlin & Lawrence Koh & Jamie Rosenberg ·Google ·27 MAR 2019
When a Big Partner Asks for a Discount, Reframe the Deal
The smartest concessions look like co-investment, not subsidies — same money, very different risk.