eBay Sues Craigslist

phpmysqldev writes "In a very random move eBay has filed a lawsuit against Craigslist to 'protect its investment and shareholders'. "In a statement, eBay claimed that in January, Craigslist executives took actions that 'unfairly diluted eBay's economic interest by more than 10%'." eBay is a minority shareholder of Craigslist owning 28.4%. Craigslist suspects eBay's intentions are less than honorable, speculating about a possible hostile takeover. The court case is sealed and eBay has not elaborated on its claims."

Comments

would eBay sell craigslist on eBay or craigslist?

[peter303]

They own 25% and sound unhappy.

To summarise:

[sm62704]

Nobody knows nothin'. If they doe, they ain't sayin'.

But of course we're going to discuss it fully here at slashdot!

Re:To summarise:

[qortra]

Just so I know; is this supposed to be parody? I'm pretty sure that whatever it is, I don't get it.

Nobody knows nothin' We know that Ebay sued Craigslist.

But of course we're going to discuss it fully here at slashdot! Indeed, as we should. Speculation is a valid component of discussion.

Re:To summarise:

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't get too wrapped up in it - That's mcgrew. He posts prolifically even when he has absolutely nothing to say...

Of course we'll speculate and discuss. It's an interesting situation even if we have few details.

Re:To summarise:

[Shakrai]

Don't get too wrapped up in it - That's mcgrew. He posts prolifically even when he has absolutely nothing to say...

Yeah, he's pretty bad, but he ain't got nothing on "Anonymous Coward". That guy usually makes dozens (hundreds!) of posts per story and 90% of them have absolutely nothing to say ;)

Re:To summarise:

[just_another_sean]

Actually, "Anonymous Coward" isn't an actual user, it's the default name to anyone posting anonymously. Hence my user name - I take no responsibility for all the other AC posts! Well gee that explains a lot! Thanks AC.

See everyone, not everything Anonymous Coward says is trolling or useless. Stop being so hard on this guy.

Re:To summarise:

[MarkGriz]

"*whoosh*"

Wow, not only is that Anonymous Coward guy quite the prolific poster, he also makes fun of himself for failing to detect sarcasm.

You really should stay on your meds, Mr. AC.

Re:To summarise:

[DanielJosphXhan]

That's not completely true. I've found out some shocking things from a group of altruists called "GNAA", not to mention elusive references to a girl in a tub, which frankly sounds pretty hot.

Re:To summarise:

[sm62704]

Just so I know; is this supposed to be parody?

The mods think not.

For those of you that are going to ask

[drhamad]

1) Craigslist is a closely held company not traded on the open market
2) This is a dilution suit. This means that basically, in a closely held company, it's easy for a majority shareholder to screw a minority shareholder, since the minority shareholder can't outvote them and can't get other shareholders to support it. Therefore, we have a lot of laws protecting minority shareholders. In this case, it seems that eBay has issued extra stock, which means that eBay no longer really has 28%, but rather less, effectively. This CAN be legal, but there has to be a solid, nonpredatory reason for it.
3) eBay managed to get its share because craigslist had issued some shares to close employees, on the assumption that it didn't matter and was just to feel nice. One of those employees decided to sell his stake publicly, and eBay bought it. Normally, no one would have been able to get access to Craigslist stock.

Re:For those of you that are going to ask

[theMerovingian]

Yeah Craigslist's attorney really F'ed that up - you can include a clause in the bylaws or a shareholder agreement which provides that the company has the right of first refusal to redeem any outstanding shares. That is pretty basic stuff, I am surprised they didn't think of it.

Re:For those of you that are going to ask

[probityrules]

3) eBay managed to get its share because craigslist had issued some shares to close employees, on the assumption that it didn't matter and was just to feel nice. One of those employees decided to sell his stake publicly, and eBay bought it.

I bet he tried to sell it on eBay...

Re:For those of you that are going to ask

[Four_One_Nine]

When they needed a lawyer, they probably just looked on Craigslist...

I wonder if they offered to pay with a cashier's check for a few hundred dollars over his fee.

Re:For those of you that are going to ask

[arkham6]

3) eBay managed to get its share because craigslist had issued some shares to close employees, on the assumption that it didn't matter and was just to feel nice. One of those employees decided to sell his stake publicly, and eBay bought it. Normally, no one would have been able to get access to Craigslist stock.</quote>

That happens more than you think. I know of at least one case in my hometown where a farm family who had a large farm generations (I think back to the 1850's or before). He did some legal mumbo jumbo where he sold shares of the farm to his kids, thinking they would keep it in the family and they could profit from the farm, etc.

Well, one son decided not to keep the shares, so he sold them off to Con-Agra, a major farming corporation. Shortly thereafter, Con-Agra filed a minority stake lawsuit against the farmer, bankrupt him in court fees and lawyers, and the farmer was forced to sell the rest of the farm off to Con-Agra.

Congratulations Con-Agra, you got about a 10 million dollar farm for no more than 2 million!

Re:For those of you that are going to ask

[Anna Merikin]

Craigslist is a pretty amateur operation. [Which is how they seem to want it.]

Exactly. I had a couple of brief discussions over posts with Craig himself, back when he was CEO, and he saw craigslist as a community and runs it as if it were. I understand and respect this, being a San Franciscan myself; I find Craig's attitude to be an expression of The City's values with respect to greed and capitalism. Craig rightly values friends and having duty and loving work combine.

N.B. Craig likes to code. I take that back. He LOVES to code. That's why someone else is CEO. Craig just wants to hang out with his friends (perhaps hundreds or thousands of them) and invent things to do with computer programs.

Sounds like a good life to me! That's the nature of San Fran City and that's what made me fall in love with it lo so many years ago.

Re:For those of you that are going to ask

[drerwk]

But how do you value the first refusal in terms of cash. If he gets a $20 million offer from ebay, and craigslist doesn't have that kind of cash, isn't the outcome the same?

Re:For those of you that are going to ask

[Atlantis-Rising]

Sure, but then Ebay would have to pay that $20 million.

Which, in essence, values the company.

There are other ways to do it; you could allow the company the right to buy back the shares at a certain price, for example, regardless of other offers, if the shares were for sale.

Re:For those of you that are going to ask

[hendridm]

When they needed a lawyer, they probably just looked on Craigslist...

You'd think the "Bring your own banana warmer" part of the ad would have made them think twice.

Re:For those of you that are going to ask

[Saint_Waldo]

Because when I think of "the little guy", I immediately think of newspapers.

Re:For those of you that are going to ask

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid son.

Re:For those of you that are going to ask

[Sciros]

The internet is bound to kill newspapers for one reason or another eventually anyway. I can't really take issue with Craigslist being a good, cheap middleman. Enough companies "make the most of their income potential" (EXXON, eBay, etc.) to offend MY sense of fairness, hahah.

Re:For those of you that are going to ask

[Rude Turnip]

D'oh...that's what shareholder agreements are for...to prevent shareholders from selling to anyone that the other shareholders don't approve of. Anyone that goes into business with a family member without a written agreement is a fool.

Re:For those of you that are going to ask

[quangdog]

On the contrary, this is the way a free market should work. I see craigslist as a somewhat scrappy underdog that is getting ahead by offering their services at a lower rate than the other guys. If this makes it more difficult for the other guys to make fat margins, they had better adapt or be prepared to lose their market share. Calling craigslist unfair just because they don't charge as much as the other guys is just silly.

One interesting side note - I have used Craigslist on numerous occasions both to find and get rid of stuff. I've also used eBay to do the same. To post something on Craigslist takes me about 3-5 minutes. To post something on eBay (cause I only do so once or twice a year) seems to take closer to 30 minutes. Lately I've completely abandonded eBay - not because they charge me money, but because the process of using their service is so much more difficult than Craigslist.

Re:For those of you that are going to ask

[R2.0]

"Anyone that goes into business with a family member...is a fool."

Fixed that for ya'.

Re:For those of you that are going to ask

[Relic of the Future]

Damn that Craig for providing a better service at a cheaper price! What a dirty commie! The gov'mnt should make him charge more, because these huge corporations can't make ends meet anymore!

Re:For those of you that are going to ask

[Panaflex]

Unless your last name is Walton...

Re:For those of you that are going to ask

[claytonjr]

I wonder if Craigslist has since edited its bylaws. It should have a clause for first buy back, to prevent this from happening.

Re:For those of you that are going to ask

[keytoe]

So, what you're saying is that Craigslist has managed to provide nominally the same service as the newspaper classifieds for less cost, is passing that savings on to the consumer, and that you find that 'wonky'?

What a bunch of jerks!

Re:For those of you that are going to ask

[cymen]

eBay is scared of Craigslist because it is a powerful local market (in many areas) which they do not control and therefor can't take a 10-25% chunk of any transaction as fees. Craigslist is a real alternative to people who are fed up with eBay and the ever increasing cost of doing business on their platform. The purchase of PayPal by eBay did little to help this and the blatant lock out of Google's payment scheme revealed just how low eBay would stoop to protect their interests at the cost of their customers.

eBay jumped the shark but the problem is that there are few alternatives to it. As small as Craigslist is, it is really one of the few viable world-wide local markets on the web.

Re:For those of you that are going to ask

[RiotingPacifist]

Sorry, have to jump in here. San Francisco values? What are San Francisco values? Homosexual S&M parades, a mayor that nails office aids then they lose their jobs? A sanctuary city for bums and illegals? I'm trying to find the values here:) I guess if your a die hard leftest San Francisco is awesome. allow me to unflamebait that for you:

"damn hippies! get off my lawn"

as for the mayoral shit, there's corruption everywhere, in fact last time i watched TV jon stewart had a section dedicated to weird sexual pleasures of mayors all over the US, took a similar format to "you dont know dick".

Re:For those of you that are going to ask

[TooMuchToDo]

When I worked for a large technology consulting firm in Chicago, I was issued thousands of stock options although the company stock wasn't public. When I tendered my resignation, I was offered the opportunity to purchase the stock at the current valuation. One of the conditions was that if I sold the private stock to someone else, the company has to approve the transaction.

Re:For those of you that are going to ask

[afidel]

After listening to the interview on NPR yesterday with the CEO I'm not in the least bit surprised. He seemed to be a fairly cool idealist who was building a site to scratch a need and then happened to develop it into a successful small company. He has repeatedly refused to turn the company into a commercial cash cow, and as he points out 95+% percent of the dotcom's that were started with the intent of going commercial are now out of business. He has a small company with a good product that makes enough money to support their costs and keep a small number of IT people employed.

Re:For those of you that are going to ask

[FuzzyDaddy]

Meanwhile, newspapers are going out of business because Craigslist has stolen all their classified advertisers.

I've bought, sold, and given away stuff on Craigslist. I wouldn't have done any of it through the classifieds - the hassle would have been too big. So while I don't doubt they are pulling business away from the classified ads, they are also providing a service which didn't otherwise exist.

Re:For those of you that are going to ask

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop being a twat.

Re:For those of you that are going to ask

[robbiedo]

Nail meet hammer. Hammer meet nail. It drives eBay absolutely bonkers that Craigslist is a competitor to eBay, and while they ow a huge chunk of it, they can't dictate policy based on their minority ownership.

Re:For those of you that are going to ask

[Grishnakh]

I'm no profit uber alles Gordon Gecko, but I find this just a little wonky.

Yes, you are actually. If you think competitors shouldn't be allowed to undercut existing companies, then there's something wrong with you. Here in the real world, we call that "competition". If you can't compete, it's time to do something else.

Are you also offended by the fact that people are allowed to just breathe air freely, even rich people, instead of having to purchase their air from vendors?

Re:For those of you that are going to ask

[cfoushee]

In this case, it seems that eBay has issued extra stock I think you meant to say "Craigslist" has issued extra stock not eBay, but everyone can probably deduce that anyhow.

Re:For those of you that are going to ask

[Actually, I do RTFA]

He has repeatedly refused to turn the company into a commercial cash cow, and as he points out 95+% percent of the dotcom's that were started with the intent of going commercial are now out of business.

95+% of noncommercial websites die in obscurity to. And Craigslist is clearly going to survive. The truely important thing to note is that sites that decide to be commerical and are as popular as Craigslist have valuations of hundreds of millions.

Re:For those of you that are going to ask

[j00r0m4nc3r]

When it first started, eBay was awesome. Now it's just this shitty quagmire of greed, crappy products, fraud, and bidnappers. I will never use them again. Ever.

Re:For those of you that are going to ask

[Bryansix]

Battery Chuck was my favorite slang phrase for people from the San Fransisco area. http://www.jimrome.com/home/jungle/smacktionary.html

Re:For those of you that are going to ask

[timmarhy]

this is just another case of big companies trumpting free markets only when it suits them....

Re:For those of you that are going to ask

[supernova_hq]

Woah now, don't start giving people ideas here. If someone with money were to catch onto that, it could end our free breathing way of life forever!

Re:For those of you that are going to ask

[petermgreen]

On the contrary, this is the way a free market should work. I see craigslist as a somewhat scrappy underdog that is getting ahead by offering their services at a lower rate than the other guys.
And ebay absoloutely doesn't want them to do that because much of craigslists users are going to come at ebays expense.

I belive destroying craigslist as a cheap alternative to ebay (either by destroying it completely or forcing it to raise prices) is what this lawsuit is really about regardless of the stated reasons.

Re:For those of you that are going to ask

[Anna Merikin]

If you pass by Muddy Waters' cafe on Valencia Street -- the one near 16th street -- about 9:00 am on a weekday, you may see a white, take-out pastry box sitting on one of the tables. It's food for the poor given nearly every day. The box contains one perfect, fresh and warm quiche divided into a dozen slices from the best bakery in the Mission, Tartine on Guerrero, which always has a line of more than 30-minutes time.

I love this city because some thoughtful soul makes the lives of the poor somewhat easier than the lives of the noveau riche.

However, I find it ironic that it is illegal to feed pigeons in the city named for Saint Francis of Assissi.

A problem?

[Slimee]

I mean is this a TOTAL problem? Sure, it's a problem for Craigslist, but in the longrun, it's not going to really affect the people who use Craigslist...a Hostile takeover by eBay could bring things like fees and such to Craigslist and drag it down to the same level as eBay, and that would most certainly suck, but just as craigslist was started something else would rise to replace it....I'm sure plenty of people have lists

Bobslist....Steveslist....Frankslist....they're all pretty catchy. Regardless, it's another case of the big guy going after the little guy for money, and this usually turns into a deepest pockets kind of thing, unless Craigslist can keep the rest of its shareholders from giving into a possible future hostile takeover that might stem from this lawsuit.

Re:A problem?

[ChinggisK]

Hmmm, Steveslist huh? *goes to check whether the domain is available* Hm, anyone got anything they want to sell? --Steve

Re:A problem?

[Kamineko]

CowboyNealslist. *shudder*

Re:A problem?

[moderatorrater]

CowboyNealslist is awful, every entry's a joke.

Re:A problem?

[spun]

Do you have a half eaten sandwich you no longer want? Are you a maid or house cleaner with absolutely no sense of smell? Are you turned on by pasty, doughy, unwashed nerds? Advertise on CowboyNealslist today!

Re:A problem?

[CowboyNealOption]

CowboyNealsList: When it comes to selling stuff, we are always the last option!

Re:A problem?

[petermgreen]

Growth takes time and who says something similar won't happen to the next one?

For a trading site to be practical it needs to build a critical mass of users and the more users there are the better it gets for those users as they are more likely to find a good match.

yep.

[owlnation]

Craigslist suspects eBay's intentions are less than honorable

Yes, indeed. They only bought into Craigslist so they could get ideas to develop kijiji (which was secretly being developed during the share purchase), and of course so they could exercise some control over their main competitor.

eBay's intention was never honorable, and that was obvious. Why ANYONE would ever think otherwise is incredible, they have no track record of honorable. At least not since Jeff Skoll left.

Sounds like...

[Overzeetop]

...they added a poison pill to the articles (or however corporations do such things) in order to prevent a hostile takeover. As a result, ebay's position and their ability to potentially take over Craigslist has been diminished. Boo hoo, cry me a river.

At first, I thought ebay was suing because craigslist was cutting into ebay's auction business. That would be ridiculous, which in American lawyerese seems to be spelled "with merit". Then I was shocked (shocked!) to learn that ebay owns almost 30% of craigslist. Nice little empire, indeed. In reality, it's just a pissing match.

Re:Sounds like...

[gEvil (beta)]

That would be ridiculous, which in American lawyerese seems to be spelled "with merit".

Yet in Slashdotese it seems to be spelled "rediculous".

Re:Sounds like...

[theMerovingian]

1) Craigslist does not have a duty to avoid competition with ebay in the marketplace, even though ebay is a minority shareholder.

2) Craigslist's duty is to manage their company in such a way that does not unduly favor the majority shareholders over minority shareholders (such as ebay). The lawsuit alleges that Craigslist breached this duty.

3) Hostile takeovers work by either a) offering a bunch of money and getting shareholders to accept the offer regardless of the opinion of the board of directors; or b) buying up some shares and trying to establish a voting bloc which will replace existing management. Since Craigslist is (presumably) a closely held private company which is managed by its majority shareholders, neither of these strategies is likely to work.

good idea

[gEvil (beta)]

I think it'll be nice if eBay takes over Craigslist. That way I'll be able to use PayPal to pay for all those, ummm, "services" I find on there. Plus I won't need to worry about my wallet disappearing.

Re:good idea

[dryueh]

In other news, Craigslist is sueing casual sex.

Re:good idea

[JWSmythe]

I've had the passing glance at some of those ads. Some you can pay for with PayPal and credit cards.

    I don't know if I'd trust that "vendor" with a credit card though. I'm a bit concerned to where it would be swiped.

    I'd be willing to bet, some of the more computer adept "vendors" would take PayPal. Do you want that paper trail though? Cash is always best for those moments you don't need haunting you in the future. When I run for president in 2012, I wouldn't want that found. Of course, I'll legalize a few things so it wouldn't matter.

Re:good idea

[Shakrai]

That way I'll be able to use PayPal to pay for all those, ummm, "services" I find on there.

You must be 'Client Number Ten' ;)

Re:good idea

[RiotingPacifist]

Ive always preferd cash, only just got a card, and that's to that now because i got lazy at least one of my oyster cards could be tracked.

p.s

I'll legalize a few things so it wouldn't matter. In the epic words of "The simpsons"
"Legalise it"
"Legalise what?"
"You know what"
"Consider it done"

Re:good idea

[liquidf]

dood you really need to find one that accepts visa.

Uh, no

[drhamad]

They aren't suing because they're competition, they're suing because they own 28% of Craigslist, and Craigslist has been (supposedly) diluting their share. This is EXTREMELY illegal, if done for reasons other than sound financial judgment (and I can't believe Craigslist has a legit reason for issuing more shares, if that is what they've been doing).

Regardless of what you think of eBay, this is a bad deal by Craigslist, if true.

Re:Uh, no

[digitrev]

Ahh. That makes much more sense then. Thanks.

Re:Uh, no

[lottameez]

Well, what if craigslist wanted to bring on new employees (or incent existing people)? In that case they'd have to issue more shares and *all* shareholders already in the company would get diluted - nothing illegal or immoral about that. Existing minority shareholders might not be happy about it or agree with the board's decision, but it's not their call to make.

Re:Uh, no

[another_neophyte]

Uh, no to Re:Uh, no There are lots of situations where dilution is legal. Like issuing options to employees that then get excercised. Or to do an acquisition using company stock. Each of those could be 'sound financial judgement' but judgement is an opinion, and eBay might have a different opinion than Craigslist majority owners or management

Re:Uh, no

[dreamchaser]

It is not illegal in a privately owned company to issue new shares, which by definition dilutes *everyones* shares. Ebay will have to prove some sort of malice in order to have a chance in court on this.

Re:Uh, no

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a problem if they give the stock away for less than market value. If the stock is valued at 1 bazillion dollars (which it would be), then giving half of it to current employees would be, legally speaking, like an Enron-scale stealing from the shareholders kind of fraud. As an owner, Ebay can sue the management over this.

Legally, Craigslist managers are obligated to extract as much money as possible from the company and give it to the owners. This completely sucks for everyone, except Ebay, which may be able to use the fact that they haven't aggressively monitized craigslist as evidence of bad faith by management, and use that to take over the company. All they need is a court settlement of, say, a million more than craigslist inc has in the bank (which I assume is not-much) and then craigslist has to pay them in stock. And once Ebay gets more than 50%, craigslist as we know it is fucked.

Re:Uh, no

[Richard_at_work]

Then CraigsList shouldn't have issued 100% of the company at the initial offering - they should have issued a portion of the company as shares, and retained the rest as the company holding. Then, subsequent issuings can be made without diluting current holders share.

If they did issue 100% of the company, then CraigsList should have held a buy back to perform a reissue to new staff - that's precisely what my current employers recently did in order to give new Directors a share in the company.

Unless they had a *really* good reason to dilute current holders shares, CraigsList are in trouble here.

Re:Uh, no

[azakem]

I'm on a pretty bad connection here, could someone tell me whether craigslist is incorporated in California or somewhere else? I'm really not familiar with corporate law on closely held corporations outside Delaware and Massachusetts.

Re:Uh, no

[Z34107]

Whether or not it's the shareholders' decision or not is kinda debatable, but needing to issue more shares to bring on new employees is epic fail. They do everything they can to avoid making a profit (earlier posters talk about the fuzzy San Francisco community spirit thing), and then screw shareholders out of their stakes because they don't have enough money to hire? Not right. Not ethical.

Then again, it's not like eBay and other shareholders couldn't have known about their particular management "style" before purchasing the company. They purposefully make the website look amateurish just to make it seem more, "personal" I guess is the word, and do seem to charge just enough to get by. (The only exception is raising rates on job listings for some major urban cities.)

Nothing against Craigslist - I got a TV from them! But they seem kind of ambivalent about their own business incompetence, and my clueless armchair lawyering predicts that this won't go well for them.

Re:Uh, no

[lottameez]

IMO It comes down to this. Company management is supposed to take actions that are in the best interest of *all* shareholders. If by providing incentives to bring on/keep great employees eventually increases shareholder value, then that's what they should do. The percentage of shares is not as relevant here as the value of the shares since everyone is diluted equally.

Re:Uh, no

[RiotingPacifist]

Legally, Craigslist managers are obligated to extract as much money as possible from the company and give it to the owners. Doesn't that only apply to public companies?

Re:Uh, no

[rtechie]

This is EXTREMELY illegal, if done for reasons other than sound financial judgment (and I can't believe Craigslist has a legit reason for issuing more shares, if that is what they've been doing). "We need to offer financial incentives to employees in order to attract the best employees in the competitive market of the Bay Area".

This literally happens EVERY SINGLE DAY in tech companies and is very easy to defend. As others have pointed out, this is almost certainly a hostile move as Craigslist is eBay's #1 competitor.

Re:Uh, no

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Legally, Craigslist managers are obligated to extract as much money as possible from the company and give it to the owners.

The Supreme Court has already ruled (in the 80's I believe) this is not the case. Craigslist managers are obligated to protect Craigslist as an artifical entity, collection of values, and network of relationships (of which the shareholders are an important but not exclusive group). And one of those collective values is a lack of agressive monitization.

Re:Uh, no

[RiotingPacifist]

So why the hell has they been moded +4 interesting for being wrong :(
craiglist is a non-public company

Re:Uh, no

[Khyber]

The moment they bought into a market they had *NO* hope of controlling they already diluted their shares. The shareholders should be filing suit against eBay.

Hostile takeover?

[R2.0]

How could eBay perform a hostile takeover? I believe the balance of Craigslist stock is privately held, and NOT on the open market. I don't think eBay can force someone to sell stock to them.

That being said, I think this is the long delayed consequences of selling that stake to eBay in the first place. Unless there is some special language in the company charter, the commonly accepted duty of corporations is to maximize benefits to the shareholder (not saying that it is right, only that it IS). I think eBay bought in years ago expecting to cash in on the big IPO, which never happened, or reap dividends when Craigslist started accepting ads, which it didn't. Now they want to use their minority share position to force the Craigslist management to run things the way eBay wants it.

I hope Craigslist crushes them, but I'm not betting on it.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Ngarrang]

Hostile take-over? Maybe if they offered the other private equity holders a dump truck of money.

Maybe this is the conspiracy nut in me typing, but I think is more to just hinder the business operation of a competitor that gives its primary service away for FREE...and is still in business...and people like it.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[George Beech]

How could eBay perform a hostile takeover? I believe the balance of Craigslist stock is privately held, and NOT on the open market. I don't think eBay can force someone to sell stock to them. The way to do this is actually spelled out very well in Cryptonomicon. The minority shareholder sues for damages, and if they win a judgment that is greater than the amount the corporation can pay, it is payed to them in stock, which - depending on the damages - could make them the majority shareholder.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[fm6]

think this is the long delayed consequences of selling that stake to eBay in the first place Actually, Craig Newmark never sold eBay anything. What he did was give an employee, Phillip Knowlton, a stake in the company. Knowlton then sold the stake to eBay. I think Newmark would he the first to agree that Craigslist's charge-what-we-need business model is incompatible with the way a publicly held company like eBay does business.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[ari_j]

It would be interesting to read the Craigslist articles of incorporation or charter, bylaws, and so forth. Did they include a clause that overrides the default rule about maximizing shareholder profits?

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Hatta]

Maximum profit and maximum profit this quarter are two different things. Craigslist's greatest asset is its unique business model. Changing this business model to provide greater profits now, would destroy the long term viability of the company. It would be killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

The destruction of Craigslist is probably what ebay wants, but CL should be able to argue that it's not being financially irresponsible by looking more than a quarter or two into the future.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[bloobloo]

How does that work? They would have to sue the majority shareholders, not the company. That is the point of limited liability. The shares are the property of the shareholder and not the company.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[anethema]

What exactly did you think a hostile takeover was? It is someone offering other shareholders more than market value for their stock against the wishes of the board or primary shareholder. This could be also done in the private arena. This is how they got the shares in the first place. One of the employees sold his stake in Craigslist to eBay.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[securitytech]

"Unless there is some special language in the company charter, the commonly accepted duty of corporations is to maximize benefits to the shareholder (not saying that it is right, only that it IS)"

All of you citing this commonly referenced provision are apparently not aware of how things actually work on wall street.

Companies bankrupt and reorganize every day and leave common shareholders holding the bag. It's unfortunately common practice for someone to own 3-5 companies, with one being the "loss" holder that is publicly traded and drove into the ground.

They will dilute and then bankrupt every few years without major consequence to their profitable companies or their personal assests.

Look at most stocks trading below $5 that have a long history of steady declines. Many (not all) of these are used just for this purpose.

It's fully sanctioned, legal stealing and it happens every week on wall street.

This isn't what is happening with Craigslist right now, but mainly responding to those who are suggesting a company "can't" do this.

They do it all the time...and without significant consequence.

Kettle, meet pot

[$RANDOMLUSER]

EBay's general counsel Mike Jacobson said: "...so we were surprised by these recent unilateral actions."

What, are they forcing you to use (only) PayPal?

Re:IANAL

[wattrlz]

From the terminology in TFA it sounds like eBay is suing Craigslist for not being good enough competition. They're suing on the grounds that Craigslist did something that reduced the value of eBay's investment in Craigslist.

Re:Ummm... unfairly?

[cfulmer]

No. That's not it at all -- they're suing because Craigslist did something that hurt the value of ebay's stock in Craigslist.

The complaint is sealed, so we don't know exactly what it was. It *could* be something like the following: The stock is worth, say, $100 per share, and ebay owns about 28% of it. Craigslist decides to sell a bunch of shares to Craig at $50 per share. Ebay is hurt because the value of its investment went down, but the value to Craig went up. Basically, it's a breach of the company's duty to the minority stockholder. It has nothing to do with competition.

Did they sue them...

[ackthpt]

Did they sue them because Craigslist isn't obfuscated, confusing, feature-bloated and buggy enough to suit them?

Just curious.

I've listed and sold a few items on eBay over the years, including recently and must say, eBay continues to get it wrong. What a fussy, buggy system. Simply interfaces gave way to bloated, unpredictable and just silliness.

As a buyer, the searches are less helpful all the time. "Look, dumbasses, I'm trying to find what I'm looking for," not a lot of other tripe you think I might be interested in.

eBay, want something to do? Go after those fecking frauds selling fake shite out of China. That should keep you busy for a while.

Meanwhile, Feedback system continues to be worthless.

Re:Did they sue them...

[ctrlF4]

It appears that eBay sees that Craigslist is infringing on their territory. Often times eBay has nothing that you are actually looking for. You could search for DVD players and it shows auctions up for 100 quanity DVD plastic cases. Craigslist on the other hand provides an easy-er way to find what you are looking for by dealing with PERSON-to-PERSON interactions and transactions. I hope that Craigslist won't be swollowed by the big coperate just yet.

Re:Did they sue them...

[gumpish]

Meanwhile, Feedback system continues to be worthless.

A++++++++ comment, would read again!

Re:Did they sue them...

[nasor]

The usefulness of Craigslist can vary quite a lot too, mainly depending on where you live. I currently live in a college town, so Craigslist works pretty well - most of the people trying to sell things are savvy enough to make understand what they are selling and make useful listing.

In my last city, on the other hand, Craigslist was littered with useless postings in which clueless people were trying to sell things that they didn't understand. 90+ percent of the adds were along the lines of "Used black and white printer. $40 or best offer." No mention of if it's a laser or inkjet printer, the manufacturer, how old it is, etc. God forbid you actually post a specific model number. There were also many adds like "Used computer system, 6 years old, in good shape. Cost $1200 new, asking $800." Good luck trying to explain to them that their 6 year old computer is now worth a lot less than when they paid for it; they usually just look at you suspiciously and assume that you're trying to rip them off.

I'm not saying that ebay is great either, but at least the national (or international) nature of the sales allows you to get the same amount of usefullness out of it no matter where you live. Craigslist can easily be nearly useless for you if you happen to live in the wrong place.

Re:Ummm... unfairly?

[theMerovingian]

ebay actually owns a minority interest in Craigslist. Minority shareholders are protected by the corporate laws of most states from abusive practices by the majority shareholders. In this case, ebay claims that the majority shareholders diluted the value of their shares in an unspecified way. Most likely, Craigslist issued additional shares of stock (thus reducing ebay's proportional ownership), or took property from the company in a way that reduced the value of ebay's investment.

Minority shareholders are a major hassle, and it was a pretty sloppy bit of work that ebay was able to acquire the shares of Craigslist in the first place.

Re:Ummm... unfairly?

[explosivejared]

Ebay is a minority shareholder in Craigslist. They aren't upset about any sort of competition. We don't know exactly what they are upset about, as the case is sealed. Most likely Craigslist has introduced a flood of new shares in order to reduce ebay's influence on the company.

P.S. I'm not sure if you are trolling or not, but not everything can be so easily summed up by jumping to conclusions about evil corporations and their anti-competitive nature.

Re:Ummm... unfairly?

[Dancindan84]

Yeah, I got that from some other people's comments after I posted. The article was light on details since they're sealed, and I misunderstood what was going on. To be fair, eBay's intentions in buying those shares wasn't noble. I would think starting Kijiji.com while being a share holder in Craiglist is anti-competitive. I can't blame Craigslist for trying to push them out (if that's what they did).

Let me put it in terms you can understand.

[pclminion]

Seems like a lot of people don't understand what this economic "dilution" thing is, and why eBay is so upset. Imagine it this way.

You, and nine friends, all pitch in $500 for a classic video game collection (a total of $5000). Each person has a 10% stake, so if the games go up in price, everyone profits.

Now imagine that the "chairman" decides to sell an additional $1000 stake to a new participant, ostensibly to purchase more video games. In return this person gets 17% ownership of the video game collection.

Do you see how this dilutes your share of the value? The $1000 stakeholder now has 17%, leaving you with only 8.3%. And suppose that the $1000 of new capital is used to purchase bogus games which have no real value, or even worse, is just pocketed by the chairman. You're getting screwed.

That's what it means when they say you need a "sound financial reason" to dilute the other shareholders' stakes.

The real question is, does Craiglist have this sound financial reason? Is the issuance of fresh stock going to lead ultimately to a gain for all parties? We don't know -- and that's the subject of this lawsuit.

Re:Let me put it in terms you can understand.

[Rod Beauvex]

This is why I beleive we need regulations on how much stock you can own in any given comopany industry.

Say if you own stock in Ford, you can't own stock in GM or any other car company., but still be able to purchase stock in Microsoft or such. Or If you own stock in say, Apple, you shouldn't be able to own stock in Microsoft, but can own stock in Toyota.

Unrestrained capitalism is no better than Communism.

Re:Let me put it in terms you can understand.

[Shakrai]

Say if you own stock in Ford, you can't own stock in GM or any other car company., but still be able to purchase stock in Microsoft or such. Or If you own stock in say, Apple, you shouldn't be able to own stock in Microsoft, but can own stock in Toyota.

My 403(b) (basically a 401(k) for non-profits) plan holds investments in every single one of those companies that you listed. I suspect that your 401(k)/403(b) does as well. And virtually every single mutual fund in existence will hold shares from at least two companies that compete with each other in some shape or form.

Unrestrained capitalism is no better than Communism.

I agree. But I don't see any benefit towards restricting what stocks an individual can own.

Re:Let me put it in terms you can understand.

[FriendlyPrimate]

We don't know for certain whether the issuing of new shares is the reason for the lawsuit. The quote 'unfairly diluted eBay's economic interest by more than 10%' could mean anything. The term 'economic interest' is suspect. For example, perhaps Craigslist executives decided to reiterate that they will not be placing ads on their site. This caused the value of the stock to be worth less (since some shareholders are holding out hope that it will one day start serving ads and become a money machine), and eBay is unhappy about the decision because it 'diluted the economic interests' of eBay.

Re:Let me put it in terms you can understand.

[rcamera]

you, sir, are an idiot. what you're proposing limits the ability to invest in a sector (or even broad-market indices). if i feel that energy companies will continue to make better and better profits, should i be forced to pick an energy company to invest in (XOM)? or should i be able to invest in the entire sector (see XLE).

if you still feel this is the case, please remove all indices and/or mutual funds from your personal and/or retirement accounts, as they all violate your beliefs (for example: multiple financial, consumer goods, drug and technology companies are in the DJI 30)

Re:Let me put it in terms you can understand.

[sholden]

That is without doubt the single dumbest idea for regulating stock ownership I have ever heard.

Re:Let me put it in terms you can understand.

[Colonel Korn]

Yeah, eBay may have a valid legal case, though without more info we can't really say. On the other hand, it should be made very clear that they don't deserve any sympathy. They only own part of Craigslist through a very slimy attempt to use a betrayal within Craigslist to take over the company and ruin it. It would be in the best interest of everyone in the world who doesn't own eBay stock for eBay to lose every claim it has to Craigslist ownership.

Re:Let me put it in terms you can understand.

[maxume]

Do you have proof that the dilution ebay is claiming is due to sale of equity?

Re:Let me put it in terms you can understand.

[pclminion]

Do you have proof that the dilution ebay is claiming is due to sale of equity?

Why would I have proof? I'm not taking anybody's side, I'm trying to explain what is going on, that's all. The proof is between eBay and Craigslist.

Re:Let me put it in terms you can understand.

[fm6]

Technically you're correct. But I find it hard to believe that eBay really cares about dilution of their interest in a small, marginally profitable company. What they do care about is that company's failing to make the most of its potential revenue streams. I suspect this suit is really about getting leverage to make them start charging for some of the services they now give away.

Re:Let me put it in terms you can understand.

[maxume]

It at least seems possible to me that ebay is claiming that Craiglist is failing to exercise its market position(so rather than unfairly diminishing the proportion of the company that ebay owns, the claim is that they are failing to make easy money, or maybe they refused a buyout offer that ebay considered to be above the market value of their stock, etc.).

The point isn't that you should have proof, the point is that the dilution could be a lot of other things other than the sale of equity below market value.

Re:Let me put it in terms you can understand.

[Headw1nd]

Actually, it's interesting. I completely agreed with you, and then I read your comment. As I read it, I started thinking, just how many of these cross-pollinated industries are really efficient? Isn't this kind of thinking part of the problem, where profits depend not on the success of a single company, but on the entire sector? So who cares if a single pharma company is uselessly bloated, the others are too, with enough co ownership to make sure that everyone gets a piece of the money coming in- a de facto monopoly. I'm not saying we should make regulations concerning individual ownership of stock, but I'm wondering if there should be a long hard look at corporate holdings, specifically where direct competitors are involved.

Re:Let me put it in terms you can understand.

[maxume]

How large of a private company should someone be allowed to build before the government steps in and takes part of it away?

Re:Let me put it in terms you can understand.

[rcamera]

just because the ability exists to own broad-market or sector doesn't mean you have to. if you think that a company will outperform the rest of its sector, you are able to buy the single name.

buying a competitor's stock is an interesting thing. recall MSFT purchased AAPL a while back. as i recall (but i don't remember all the details), AAPL was fairly cheap on a P/E basis and the MSFT purchasing pushed the price up a bit. i don't think anybody long AAPL would mind the price being driven up... another example is the recent MSFT bid for YHOO. it's nearly the same, but this time, they are offering to buy the entire company. MSFT bid a ~50% premium, and the YHOO price gapped up by about the same amount the next day. once again, nobody long YHOO is going to complain.

so what's the problem with buying into a direct competitor?

Re:Let me put it in terms you can understand.

[mabhatter654]

but Craig's list was BUILT by the owners not bought. Their value of labor has no set dollar value just a rough percentage of what they have now. In your case, Imagine somebody brings in a very old, rare system from their closet and Your CEO cuts them in. That person didn't add "money" but they added immense value to the sum of your collection. That's what a good programmer would be to Craig's List. It's perfectly legal as the new buy brought value to the company even if you can't put dollars on it.

Ebay is trying to play the "money" card when they really bought in to a "sharing" club of running the company that happens to make a little money to pay some bills.

Re:Let me put it in terms you can understand.

[mabhatter654]

spend a fortune in legal fees and have the suits collect a big bonus? Like Bill, Larry, or Stevie B....

I'm sure that's what you've meant.

Re:Ummm... unfairly?

[nomadic]

So Craigslist became popular enough to affect eBay's bottom line and that warrants a lawsuit. No mention even of patent infringement or anything legally relevant. Just, "They took 10% of our business so we're suing." IANAL, but I'm thinking this falls under frivolous.

This has nothing to do with Craigslist taking ebay's business, it's about Craigslist's executives taking possibly illegal actions to disadvantage a minority shareholder.

Re:Somebody please tag article

[garbletext]

Why? they used a lava lamp RNG to determine which of the four phony lawsuits they were going to file and "Stock Dilution" came up. This process is generally considered *very* random

Is it just me ...

[gstoddart]

Is it just me, or is eBay well on its way to becoming yet another evil .com?

They seem to becoming obnoxious and litigious bastards more and more. Then again, maybe we just don't see the "eBay saves kittens from pound" stories.

I gave up on eBay years ago, but it seems like the only time I hear their name nowadays is in a story which shows them to be rather annoying.

Cheers

Re:Is it just me ...

[Shakrai]

Is it just me, or is eBay well on its way to becoming yet another evil .com?

"Well on its way"? Dude, that plane had a tailwind and arrived several years ahead of schedule ;) eBay has been an 'evil .com' for at least the last few years.

Re:Is it just me ...

[gstoddart]

"Well on its way"? Dude, that plane had a tailwind and arrived several years ahead of schedule ;) eBay has been an 'evil .com' for at least the last few years.

Well, I haven't used them since likely before 2002. So, my exposure to them nowadays is limited to new stories. :-P

Cheers

Re:Is it just me ...

[TheGratefulNet]

ebay has ALWAYS been an evil.com

the last round of changes (on ebay) have alienated the last wave of those who use ebay for convenience. for those that rely on them for their living (always suspect; but hey, whatever ...) they have no choice but those of us who CHOOSE to use ebay - the exodus has started and ebay has lost off their goodwill.

around the time that ebay bought paypal, that was truly the beginning of evil.com for them.

Random how?

[EVil Lawyer]

How exactly is this a "random move"? eBay is upset that Craigslist is (they claim) doing something illegal that harms eBay. So they're suing. Random how?

Greed and eBay's sagging revenue growth

[MarkEst1973]

Craigslist is a untapped gold mine, and eBay knows it. eBay's growth is tepid, at best, and they need some way to appease Wall Street. Why not connive plans on a hugely profitable yet potentially hugely more profitable site like Craigslist? If a hostile takeover was ever their goal and Newmark and Co. nipped that idea in the bud, I'd be a mad eBay, too.

What is the purpose?

[killerkoi]

eBay is trying to stop a FREE service from doing the job it has been doing for ages, but allowing a more local search.

All craigslist has to do is take the timeframe ebay is throwing at them and look at when ebay forced paypal usage. Then get a bunch of past customers that stopped using ebay when they forced paypal and get the to say why they left and this will be mute point.

The thrill of ebay is going away and someone developed a service that people can use for free.

ONE FINAL NOTE: Ebay just needs to get more money to pay for their mind numbingly stupid comercials that are playing too often as it is.

Kobutah

"I do not regret the things I have done, but those I did not do."

Re:Ummm... unfairly?

[phoomp]

Actually, I think it means that Craigslist took actions that unfairly diluted eBay's economic interest in *Craigslist* by more than 10%.

ebay should...

[v(*_*)vvvv]

buy craigslist and flip it on eBay for a quick buck!

Re:would eBay sell craigslist on eBay or craigslis

[jgarra23]

They own 25% and sound unhappy. Yes, can someone please explain as I am not very well-versed in corporate law... what are the legal ramifications of this suit & how does one sue a company that you own 25% of? Isn't that like suing your kids while they're still teenagers or something?

Re:would eBay sell craigslist on eBay or craigslis

[Luyseyal]

Hostile takeover. Ebay files the lawsuit to devalue the shares. Then, Ebay buys up more and more shares to have greater control over an eventual vote. Ebay tenders an offer for Craigslist. Since it owns more, it can influence the shareholder vote more significantly. Ebay wins the auction (ha) and cancels the lawsuit.

-l

Re:would eBay sell craigslist on eBay or craigslis

[Luyseyal]

I withdraw my comment as Craigslist is not a public company. D'oh.

-l

Intentions

[fahrbot-bot]

Craigslist suspects eBay's intentions are less than honorable...

Seems eBay posted the lawsuit on the "Casual Encounters" board.

Re:Intentions

[Intron]

I heard the reason eBay is suing is that their date turned out to be a dude.

e is for evil

[nevillethedevil]

I should be shocked and appalled by this but the way Ebay has been acting lately it does not come as a surprise. My wife recently had an auction pulled mere hours before it ended simply because it had the term "like new" in the title. Apparently you can no longer use such a term (some BS about search spam) despite the fact that it accurately describe the item in question. Of course they don't tell you this when you make the listing and they take your money. E(vil)bay has gone down the drain over the last 2 years with increasing fees and pointless screw the seller policies. They will not be getting anymore of our business.

Just out of interest does anyone know of any other good online auction sites?

Re:e is for evil

[Tenebrousedge]

E(vil)bay has gone down the drain over the last 2 years with increasing fees and pointless screw the seller policies.

Really? Those must be new policies that I haven't heard about. Last time I checked, they actually had a screw everybody policy...

Re:e is for evil

[Larryish]

http://www.ebid.net/

Re:e is for evil

[nevillethedevil]

Thanks Larryish.

Re:would eBay sell craigslist on eBay or craigslis

[HUADPE]

You can sue any company which you own less than 50%+1 share of. Heck, you can even sue companies that you do own (though it's stupid). The legal consequences are unknown, but presumably if eBay got sufficient damages, they could force Craig to sell more of the company, and possibly enough to do a takeover.

Re:would eBay sell craigslist on eBay or craigslis

[spottedkangaroo]

I suspect the justice department or the SEC would have something to day about that particular maneuver.

I very much doubt it's legal. It can't be.

At the very least, wouldn't that count as malicious prosecution?

Re:would eBay sell craigslist on eBay or craigslis

[Anonymous Coward]

You can still own part of a private company.

Re:Ummm... unfairly?

[bennomatic]

Makes you wonder if this wasn't eBay's point in buying the stock initially. Buy it, wait for actionable item, sue, take over, profit... Not a bad plan.

I don't understand.

[mcmonkey]

Now imagine that the "chairman" decides to sell an additional $1000 stake to a new participant, ostensibly to purchase more video games. In return this person gets 17% ownership of the video game collection.

Before, I had 10% of a company worth $5000, or $500. After I have 8.3% of a company worth $6000, or $500. So how does this dilute the value of my shares? How am I getting screwed?

If the chairman pockets the extra $1000, that's just good old fashioned embezzlement. That has nothing to do with the shares.

A correct example would be, the chairman wants someone to manage our collection and offers shares in the company as an incentive to fill the position. The number of shares goes up without an increase in the value of the company. That results in dilution of my shares.

Re:I don't understand.

[pclminion]

Before, I had 10% of a company worth $5000, or $500. After I have 8.3% of a company worth $6000, or $500. So how does this dilute the value of my shares? How am I getting screwed?

You get screwed if that $1000 is spent frivolously, down a rat hole or otherwise. In other words, spent in a way that does not equitably raise value for all shareholders.

Re:I don't understand.

[khallow]

Suppose the chairman decides to give those shares to another person in exchange for services. Then you have 8.3% of a company worth $5000 plus whatever that other person delivers. You might agree that the exchange was worth it, or you might not, but your shares in the company have been diluted.

Re:I don't understand.

[maxume]

One possibility is that the value used in the sale is wrong. If the company is worth $10,000 and 20% of it gets sold for $1,000, existing shareholders are getting it hard.

Re:I don't understand.

[mabhatter654]

this is more like "cutting in" somebody that does good work for your group. Say you find somebody that has little money up front, but they have a closet full of old games, and they visit auctions and flea markets every week to bring in rare games for cheap. Are they worth the Dollar value of their time (not much if they have all that free time) or the dollar value of the games they found, or some other additional value because of the increase in the importance of your collection? You're giving them "shares" in the value not actual money to compensate their contribution to the collection. As the collection is worth more now the previous group has not lost money. As they now own a percent of a bigger pie!

Re:would eBay sell craigslist on eBay or craigslis

[Luyseyal]

There is another comment that explains how they got their shares.
-l

Re:way to rock old news

[calebt3]

/. isn't an actual news site. It's a blog. If you want hot-off-the-press news, go somewhere else. If you want rational, informational discussions with a wide variety of people, try digg.

Mod parent Informative!

[FiloEleven]

Wish I had mod points. This is the most informative post I've read this year!

Re:would eBay sell craigslist on eBay or craigslis

[magarity]

Online auction site eBay acquired a 28.4% stake when it bought shares from a former employee who had been given equity by Mr Newmark.
 
Public company: Shares for sale to/from anyone via the official markets (NASDAQ, AMEX, NYSE). Private company: Shares for sale to/from anyone via go find them yourself and hand over the cash in person.
 
  (Ignorance of the business world is bliss.)
 
Ignorance of business gets you screwed by the first unscrupulous person you have to do business with. Good luck with that unless you're a hunter/gatherer hermit who never does business with anyone.

Letter to Ebay

[kurisuto]

eBay Inc.
2145 Hamilton Avenue
San Jose, California 95125

Dear Sir or Madam,

I read that eBay has sued Craigslist on the grounds that eBay's shares in Craigslist have been "unfairly diluted." The details of the case are under court seal, but there is speculation, both in the public comment by Craigslist and on boards such as Slashdot.com, that eBay's real intention is a hostile takeover of a competitor.

In my view, Craigslist is one of the most popular services on the Internet due largely to its largely non-commercial nature. A possible outcome of the case is that Craigslist would be taken over and overrun by ads, and that it editorial policies would be changed to reflect more heavily commercial goals, to the great detriment of the quality of the service. I do not want to see this happen to this excellent community service. If the essential nature of Craigslist is degraded as a result of this lawsuit, then it is my intention to permanently boycott eBay and PayPal, to shift my business to eBay's competitors, and to encourage others to do likewise.

(Signature)

Re:Letter to Ebay

[WiseWeasel]

It's very difficult to do a hostile takeover of a privately held company. A hostile takeover is where a buyer makes an offer directly to shareholders of a publicly-traded company to buy their shares at a certain price above their market value, in the hopes of obtaining a controlling interest in the target company. This is a fairly straightforward procedure, as it's easy to find all the major shareholders in a public company. In a private company, the shareholders are not disclosed, and eBay would actually have to find each stockholder and make them personal offers. It's very possible that the majority stake is owned by the people currently running Craigslist (Craig, the CEO, other chief executives), who might be extremely unlikely to accept eBay's offers, no matter how high they are, if they have an emotional attachment to the company.

This is probably nothing more than trying to push Craigslist to monetize their site more, showing ads, charging for more services and raising their rates, in the hopes of increasing their revenue, and that it might push people away from Craigslist in favor of eBay.

Re:Letter to Ebay

[WiseWeasel]

Or hell, maybe Craigslist DID dilute their shares inappropriately...

Re:Let me put... Good, but not entirely accurate

[Prisoner's Dilemma]

>> Do you see how this dilutes your share of the value? The $1000 stakeholder now has 17%, leaving you with only 8.3%.

Actually, $1000 / $6000 = 16.6%, which is 2x8.3%. Here it's the proportion that matters.

>>And suppose that the $1000 of new capital is used to purchase bogus games which have no real value,
This is no different that is $1000 of existing capitol was wasted and is not related to dilution.

>>or even worse, is just pocketed by the chairman.
What you describe is the chairman selling corporation owned(non-issued) stock and keeping the proceeds. Dilution would not be the issue here either.

The problem is when the change in %voting rights or %of retained earnings and changes significantly.

My mind is weird...

[Jon.Laslow]

I read that as "CowboyNihilist"....

trips up more companies than you'd think

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd be surprised how large a company can be and still make that same mistake.

SAIC (nee SAI) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Applications_International_Corporation/, number 285 on the Fortune 500 list, was employee-owned until 2006 but didn't think to add the clause giving the company right of first refusal until the first time an employee left the company and declined to sell back the stock they owned.

Re:trips up more companies than you'd think

[afabbro]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Applications_International_Corporation/

Wikipedia links don't have trailing slashes. Try this link instead. Alas, it mentions nothing about what you're discussing.

Re:trips up more companies than you'd think

[Snowmit]

*type type type* *submit*

It does now!

Re:would eBay sell craigslist on eBay or craigslis

[Luyseyal]

Yeah, I noticed that after the fact and commented to my own comment, but since slashdot doesn't allow you to delete your comments, it's stuck.

-l

Re:would eBay sell craigslist on eBay or craigslis

[Anonymous Coward]

It's better when you win it!

Re:would eBay sell craigslist on eBay or craigslis

[Rude Turnip]

They bought stock, which is privately held. On a tiny amount of companies are traded on an exchange. The vast majority are private.

Re:would eBay sell craigslist on eBay or craigslis

[claytonjr]

It is possible to sue the execs (craigslist) because they did not follow the best interests of the shareholders (ebay). An extremely simplified version of this is execs are spending ebays money, inappropriately. Thus, the value of the share drops, and ebay loses more money. I think this is also referred to as a hostile takeover. This could be an attempt on ebays part to gain more clout.

I'm sure this has NOTHING to do with the Economy.

[GReaToaK_2000]

Lame, there goes a free mechanism to sell junk in my basement.

Taking it out on craigslist because they (eBay) upped their prices and fees due to the fact fewer people use them... Nice. It has nothing to do with all the discussions in the news about the US economy sucking wind is really squeezing families making less than $100K a year.

Please...

Re:would eBay sell craigslist on eBay or craigslis

[jgarra23]

Thanks for all the great replies, I am that much more enlightened and proportionally disillusioned :)

Re:Ummm... unfairly?

[paulthomas]

Good clarification on why they're suing. To elaborate on your suggested scenario: Craigslist, as a closely held company, has no public market for its shares, and therefore its shares are hard to value. In this case, the company can typically exercise its judgment on its own valuation in the case of a new offering of shares or options. You can definitely say that $100/share is the fairest price to pay for new shares in a company that is trading at $100/share on the stock market, but in the case of a private company like Craigslist, or M&M Mars, every party does their own evaluation based on comparable public companies, discounted cashflow valuation, liquidation value, etc.. Two parties could easily value a private company, one at 50, and the other at 100.

Oh, it's like Pokemon!

[GameboyRMH]

So a hostile takeover is like the business equivalent of catching a Pokemon...except you're using lawsuits instead of status effects, buying shares instead of attacking, and tendering an auction instead of throwing a Pokeball. Makes sense.

Re:Oh, it's like Pokemon!

[sexconker]

Why is this not modded insightful/funny/awesome ?

Re:Oh, it's like Pokemon!

[Miseph]

Because Pokemon is a crappy CCG with poor card balance and a devoted following comprised almost entirely of 12 year olds?

Re:Oh, it's like Pokemon!

[PopeRatzo]

So a hostile takeover is like the business equivalent of catching a Pokemon

Exactly!

You really should talk to the newly Fox-owned Wall Street Journal about getting a job as an analyst.

You definitely make more sense than slimy Larry Kudlow or that crazy fuck Jim Cramer who yells and spits on himself. I don't think he "went bald" so much as his hair committed suicide just to get as far away from him as it could.

Re:Oh, it's like Pokemon!

[GameboyRMH]

Pretty decent RPG, though. Every played them?

Re:Oh, it's like Pokemon!

[Ken Broadfoot]

My kid is 9. So it isn't entirely 12 year olds.

Re:Oh, it's like Pokemon!

[petermgreen]

mostly the newer games are just more of the same with more pokemon to get and better graphics.

There are a hell of a lot of pokemon in recent versions. My brother and I got every pokemon for the GBA generation (ruby/saphire/fire red/leaf green/emerald/colloseum/xd) except the event only pokemon and the one from pokemon channel but it took us well over a year and the DS generation adds even more to get.

The stories were reasonable but nothing steller and getting constantly interrupted by wild pokemon you didn't want was a PITA. There was also a lot of grinding (wandering aimlessly arround in the higest level area you could access trying to gain EXP for the next run of fights)

BTW if you own a gamecube give colloseum and XD a go (in that order since XD is a sequal to colloseum). They keep the pokemon theme while being in a 3D world and having a fairly different story from the other games.

Re:Oh, it's like Pokemon!

[WK2]

The Pokemon CCG was awesome. With Magic TG, every turn was to pick a card, and then mindlessly play your cards. The right move was always obvious. Making your deck took skill, but actually playing had none. Pokemon, on the other hand, involved skill when you make your deck, and when you play your deck.

What was the topic again? Oh yes, Pokemon sues Craigslist.

Re:Oh, it's like Pokemon!

[Miseph]

Apparently you've never played with a trick deck, or against anyone who doesn't completely suck. Then again, you've apparently played a lot of the Pokemon CCG, so that should be about par for the course.

Re:Ummm... unfairly?

[just_another_sean]

Buy it, wait for actionable item, sue, take over, profit... Two issues:

Where is the ??? entry and isn't the list supposed to be vertical, not horizontal?

Re:would eBay sell craigslist on eBay or craigslis

[zymano]

Trying to push share price down like that would deserve a countersuit.

Re:would eBay sell craigslist on eBay or craigslis

[kodiakbri]

EBay is slimey. I've got 100% postive feedback for EBay with over 150 buys and sells over 7 or 8 years now. Let met tell you they are a slimely group and Craigslist is their worst nightmare. EBay doesn't see the writing on the wall which is that their service is living on borrored time. Why pay to post online??? I admit I do because there's a good working market there, but someday there will be a good working market without them. I look forward to that day.

Interview with Craigslist CEO

[Selanit]

Just yesterday Marketplace conducted an interview with the Craigslist CEO. You can listen to the interview on their site (it's the "listen to story" link, not the "listen to show" link). It's a pretty interesting interview -- one of the questions was "why aren't you running advertising?" And the answer was "because it's annoying and we think annoying our customers is stupid." When I heard him say that, I sat back and thought "Yeah! Nice to hear a CEO who really gets it."

They're a profitable company; but not madly, hugely, enormously profitable the way they could be. I like that. Capitalism offers powerful incentives to participate in the economy, which is generally good; but it also has a tendency to encourage empire-building and delusions of grandeur. So it's nice to see a company once in a while which isn't hell bent on world domination.

I wish their pages were a bit better designed, though. I appreciate the focus on navigation, but would it kill them to put borders around some of the boxes full of lists, to visually group them? And they could make some improvements for screen reader users, especially adding headings so that blind visitors could have their screen readers jump to the headings in the page rather than having to wade through everything that comes before the part they're interested in.

Re:Interview with Craigslist CEO

[pimpimpim]

As for design improvements: Imagine they do a makeover in flash. Now you can wish they'll just stay with the old clunky design that at least works.

Luckily some chap posted the link to the old dilbert layout here, because I couldn't find a "past strips" button on the fully interactive flash interface. Bah.

Re:Interview with Craigslist CEO

[Anonymous Coward]

They're a profitable company; but not madly, hugely, enormously profitable the way they could be. I like that. Capitalism offers powerful incentives to participate in the economy, which is generally good; but it also has a tendency to encourage empire-building and delusions of grandeur. So it's nice to see a company once in a while which isn't hell bent on world domination. You mean like slashdot? I was pleased when CmdrTaco explained in the 10-year anniversary post that he was fighting the suits. And look at the /. rivals now - digg is no longer a place for techies, and reddit is struggling to not be "just another pic" site. Maybe Malda was right about the whole editor thing.

Mod parent up

[GameboyRMH]

Mod parent up - there's no catching involved in the card game.

IMO, after Crystal the games started to stagnate. Until Diamond/Pearl anyways.

Net.libertarians take note

[mrraven]

Take note Libertarian fundamentalists, your flawed assumption is that companies will compete fairly leading to good outcomes for all. But that's not how it works in the real world where in fact companies are run by greedy people who will use any tactic fair or foul to win. Whether it's sleezy stock deals, lawsuits, or working to gain monopoly companies CANNOT be trusted to compete fairly in the so called "free market" which is full of foul collusion that screws the little guy and leads to bad outcomes for all. Like or not that is why we have regulation of markets above and beyond just making sure contracts are fair as Libertarians would like it.

Thus you FAITH in the free market is no more founded in empirical reality than the faith of creationists. Time to go back to the drawing board now that empirical reality shows you are living in a fantasy world with assumptions about human nature every bit as flawed as the communists were.

Re:Net.libertarians take note

[ral8158]

Someone's a little bit bitter.

Re:Net.libertarians take note

[iamhigh]

Your flawed assumption is that the government can be trusted to properly regulate companies. I don't know about you, but at this moment in time I will take the companies. It is easy to stop using ebay, it isn't as easy to stop using the government.
 
So when you have implemented a government that ISN'T run by corporations, cares about the people of the state, and is worthy of me putting all my eggs in that basket... then I will admit that the free market is not the way to go.

Re:Net.libertarians take note

[mrraven]

Curious how net.libertarians defend their faith EXACTLY like religious bigots do, you care to offer a substantive critique of my argument that people don't behave like they are modeled to behave in the Libertarain economic theory or will you just stay to the low road of the ad hominem fallacy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Keep preaching your faith like the worst sort of fundy, fewer people that pay attention to the emperical facts of the world are listening, they think ubiquitous high speed internet, health care for all and no homeless problem like in the Scandinavian countries sounds pretty good compared to the U.S. model. And yes U.S. citizen here, one deeply ashamed of his country, the Fox News far right media, and the duplicitous people who vote for Bushs and Hillaries against their own best interest.

Re:Net.libertarians take note

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of free market allows share holders to sue the company they hold their shares in for a "dilution" claim?

So a company uses a branch of government to oppress one of its competitors, and you see it as an indictment against the free market?

Government causes a problem, and the solution you see is more government?

I really don't understand what you're getting at.

Re:Net.libertarians take note

[mrraven]

In an ideal world it would be private co-ops, community gardens, open source software etc, that would win the day show that a paradigm neith socialist nor capitalist is possible. Unfortunately in an age of globilization and disappearing unions I think some government regulations are necessary in the here and now to balance the power of corporations right now, in areas like health care, minimum wage, the environment, etc. Unlike Libertarians I don't live in a fantasy world where where devious spreadsheets with flawed equations show graphs going up, up, up, I live in the real world in the U.S. where working people at places like Wal-Mart live in their cars with no health care, and nothing of substance is being done about our ongoing energy crisis, the threat of global warming, etc. Under these conditions the heavily regulated European market with a generous safety net doesn't look too bad.

Re:Net.libertarians take note

[Watson Ladd]

Thank you for describing Utopian socialism. Unfortunately achieving that goal will require moving beyond social democracy. Power, not just money needs to be socialized, and that is unlikely to happen in Europe. It needs to happen in the United States to survive.

Re:Net.libertarians take note

[mrraven]

And your concrete practical answer that can be applied now?

Re:Net.libertarians take note

[mrraven]

Way to miss the point, the point is people behave in ways that the limited model of net.Libertarians doesn't anticipate. If it weren't suing competitors it would be forming monopolies, sleezy stock takeovers, bribes, false advertising, imperfect knowledge of consumers, dumping pollutants off property (including the air) and other things that happen in the real world not modeled in the Libertarian fantasy world that have real and terrible consequences for real people and the environment.

Re:Net.libertarians take note

[canter]

No YOU'VE missed the point. PLEASE show me a link where these mythical "net.Libertarians" don't anticipate.. you know, people acting like PEOPLE.

Libertarians are NOT idealists. We're advocating the best approach that works WITH human nature, not against it.

Monopolies? Government IS a monopoly, by definition.

Sleazy stock takeovers? How about a government that can leave you bankrupt and jailed on a whim?

Bribes? Never happens in government now does it?

False Advertising? I can't think of a government program that has EVER come in on time, under budget, and completed satisfactorily. You know a politician is lying when their mouth is moving.

Imperfect knowledge of consumers? Governments THRIVE on misinformation. Its an artform with them.

Dumping pollutants? Happens all the time with government. Check Google for what's happening in Area 51 for one small example.

Sorry, but your cure is worse than the "disease" you rant so incoherently against.

And your tagline is a perfect example of the breathtaking vastness of your lack of understanding. WHO gets to decide what constitutes "too many things"? You? Hillary? Mao?

Your ridiculous "philsophy" will never work as long as human nature is what it is. If we manage to change that, then of course it will no longer be "human nature".

Please crawl back under your rock now. and for the FSM's sake, PLEASE never, ever vote.

Re:Net.libertarians take note

[mrraven]

Deregulation has worked soooooo well sub prime scandal ring a bell? Face it people are sick of right wing pigs like yourself shilling for Wal Mart selling goods made by Chinese slave labor, the non response to Katrina, the sub prime bomb out, the car companies foisting inefficient SUVs on the American public, etc. Well guess what you and your kind are going to lose big time in November because all the people fed up with right wing pigs are going to vote in November. HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHHA

And don't even try to tar me with the Hilary brush I hate the corporate suck up witch.

Re:Net.libertarians take note

[ral8158]

Who said I was a libertarian?

Re:Net.libertarians take note

[mrraven]

Libertarian defender then, excuuuuuuuse me...

Re:Net.libertarians take note

[ulrikft]

First of all, we have a homeless problem in Scandinavia, an increasing one to be honest. Secondly, the Scandinavian model has a few prerequisites: people have to have high morals when it comes to "do your duty THEN claim your right". If you have too many people just claiming their right, the model does not work. When it comes to behaviour, you have quite a few arguments coined by people like Matt Ridley that argue from a evolutionary perspective that explain why and how people behave in different situation. The fact that no "libertarian economic" has been tried out in a modern society kind of makes your argument a bit flawed too. So instead of trying to shout and yell, try to think. Getting a grip on the facts of the Scandinavian model would also improve your argument. Ulrikft.

Re:Net.libertarians take note

[ulrikft]

1) A free market is not an unregulated marked. I doubt that any serious libertanian philosopher suggest a market with no regulations what so ever. 2) You don't define "greed", "fair" or any of the other words you use so harshly, I would like a quick definition if you don't mind. 3) People like Matt Ridley, Richard Dawkins and quite a few evolutionary social scientists, are basing their theories about social science on the opposite of religion: science. Stating that people like Sowell refuses to use empirical evidence and relate to reality is.. not very wise. Ulrikft.

Re:Net.libertarians take note

[mrraven]

Here in the U.S. we have been gutting industrial regulations for years since Reagan just like Libertarians would have us do and the result has been homeless people, inefficient SUVs and mini mansions, and corporate scandal after corporate scandal, Enron ring a bell? Sub prime mortgages, stock bubble? The unregulated market has suuuuch good outcomes, not...

Re:Net.libertarians take note

[ulrikft]

You are not adressing any of my points. Secondly, many of the problems in the sub prime mortage/stock bubble situation is in heavily regulated parts of the market, not in less regulated parts. Again, getting your facts straight would improve your arguments quite a bit.

Re:would eBay sell craigslist on eBay or craigslis

[Facetious]

The second part of your comment would make a great sig.

Re:would eBay sell craigslist on eBay or craigslis

[keithjr]

Probably on eBay, then Craigslist wouldn't be able to leave negative feedback.

Re:would eBay sell craigslist on eBay or craigslis

[MarkvW]

As Sam Kinison once said to Rodney Dangerfield: "I like the way you think!"

Re:The Real Reason

[Grishnakh]

Don't forget that Ebay's going to take around 10% of the proceeds anyway, maybe more for small items.

Unfortunately, Ebay still has its place. If I'm trying to sell an obscure piece of vintage electronics gear, for instance, I'm probably not going to do very well listing it on Craigslist. (I'd do even worse if I didn't live near a major metro area.) This is where Ebay is perfect, because you can sell obscure goods to an international audience very easily. Unfortunately, Ebay doesn't seem to care about that, and would rather cater to "power sellers" who sell boatloads of phone chargers and other cheap Chinese-made junk with high "handling" fees.

I really wish someone would make a viable competitor to Ebay.

Re:would eBay sell craigslist on eBay or craigslis

[cleatsupkeep]

I had an image of the Coke guys asking to sue Coke Zero, but maybe that's just me.

Re:would eBay sell craigslist on eBay or craigslis

[Frantix]

Craigslist, even with the layout is very useful...

eBay probably sees a chance of "keeping it free" while offering 1000 unneeded features for ranging fees, direct kickbacks to their credit card site where they can ding the same person again and watch the prices go up... er wait, I guess I could have just said they'll apply the eBay strategy.

Random?

[Ken Broadfoot]

"In a very random move eBay has filed a lawsuit against Craigslist to 'protect its investment and shareholders'.

Lawsuits are random?

Totally accurate description, though..

[wanax]

"Untapped gold mine" means that there is an extractable, non-renewable resource that can be tapped for immediate revenue. I think it's a very apt description for how a company like eBay would look at craigslist:

A resource that they could extract advertising revenue for ~10-20 quarters, while destroying its value, and then move on to the next mine.

Craigslist current business model, however, can be better described as something like a tree farm or sustainable exploitation of a fishery, where the revenue production is comparatively modest in the short term, but consistent in the long term.

Re:would eBay sell craigslist on eBay or craigslis

[The Great Pretender]

A private company is just one that is not publicly traded. i.e. you or I cannot go out and buy shares in Craigslist but we can in eBay. eBay has invested money in a private venture, Craigslist, and any money that eBay makes from it's investment will impact the ROI to it's shareholders.

If you own part of a private company, you want to either just be a silent partner or you want you want to have controlling interest. Anything under 51% is not controlling interest. If you have less than 50% then you are at the whim of any decision you partners want to make, as long as that decision is within the laws and bylaws controlling your company.

Now if the Board (typically put in place by the majority owner, unless you have a close holding and cumulative voting) issues a bunch of shares without a previous non-dilution agreement, there will be a dilution of shares and potentially value. This is what eBay is complaining about.

From what I have read, the Board issued shares to another entity increasing the number of shares outstanding. Therefore, eBays original number of shares now come from a larger amount of shares, thus they have a lower percentage. As the value of eBays interest is based on the percentage of shares they basically have seen a forced decline in their investment. The Board has a legal fiduciary responsibility to all shareholders equally to give them value for their investment. eBay is suing as they believe that the Boards actions impacted the value of their shares, by reducing the percentage of the total value they are due.

Safeway suing Starbucks

[Simonetta]

In related news, Safeway announced that it is suing Starbucks because Starbucks is seriously undercutting its coffee sales. Safeway's public relations manager announced, "The American people deserve the opportunity to have a good cup of coffee in the morning, it's a god-given right! Starbucks is undermining that right by introducing mass confusion into the coffee marketplace. Before Starbucks, people always knew that they get their good, dependable, all-American coffee at the same store, at the same place, year after year. Now that Starbucks has appeared, they aren't sure. We have to put a stop to them. It's what Jesus would do."

Re:Safeway suing Starbucks

[supernova_hq]

Oh god, where are my mod points?

Re:Safeway suing Starbucks

[WK2]

Apparently, you missed the part about eBay owning Craigslist. I didn't know that either until I RTFS.

Re:Safeway suing Starbucks

[forcornsake]

I'm cornfused; aren't Safeway, Vons and Vons Pavilions under same entity? Our Von's stores have mini Starbucks inside of them! So does Target.

Re:would eBay sell craigslist on eBay or craigslis

[petermgreen]

True so there is no share price to knock down.

If ebay can get a controlling majority in craigslist they put the prices up to be higher than thier own and they win.

If ebay can bankrupt craigslist they buy the name/domains at the bankrupcy sale and either redirect it to ebay or set up thier own craigslist site with ebay like pricing. Again they win.

If they can get a settlement or judgement paid in stock that puts them closer to a controlling majority.

snap up shares when you can and harras the company with minority shareholder lawsuits (which are likely to cause pain to a lot of companies who aren't agressively monitising thier assets) in the meantime. Also harras the company with any other lawsuits you think you can get away with.

Re:would eBay sell craigslist on eBay or craigslis

[petermgreen]

Whether they honestly belive it or not is irrelevent. They can claim it and since a private company is difficult to value they can probablly cause a reasonablly protracted lawsuit over it.

Afaict for ebay buying a share in craigslist serves two purposes, firstly if they find more people willing to sell out they may eventually get a controlling interest (which would allow them to put up it's prices), secondly it gives them a whole new category of lawsuits to harras them with.

Ebay coming out of shock after Skype.

[Simonetta]

Ebay is finally beginning to realize that they pissed away all the money that they have ever made and all the money that they ever will make by buying Skype for billions of dollars. Jesus, I'd love just one toke of whatever they were smoking when they thought that was a good idea. They just threw several billion dollars at the first wild-ass idea that walked into the room.

    First they tried to convince themselves (no one outside the company would ever believe it) that this could be turned into a smart business move, somehow. No luck there.

    Then they tried to raise prices on their eBay customers and give lots of hints about how well Skype could be 'integrated' into the eBay 'experience'. This only resulted in lots of pissed off eBay customers because selling used junk from your closet is very low profit-margin 'business' to begin with. So now they come to the conclusion that the only way to avoid the consequences of being stupid is to sue your competitors.

    Well, that isn't going to work either.

    Ebay should just bite-the-bullet and accept that they did something really stupid by buying Skype. First, find and fire everyone in the company who thought that it was a good idea (hint: start with Meg!). Second, expand your core business, which is providing a means for people to sell their second-hand junk easily. Post the StarTrek Ferengi rules-of-profit everywhere. Then go out and buy or rent any big-box store in the vast wasteland of American suburbs that becomes available. Have people bring their unwanted secondhand stuff to the big-box and either sell it like a 'garage sale', consign it, or hold either standard auctions or eBay auctions.

    The difference between Craig's_List and eBay is that CL is basically local and eBay is very specialized. I've used both to sell MIDI tone modules. With CgList, you set a price and sell the item to the first person who shows up with the money. With eBay, you write a detailed description, wait for registered bids, and at an agreeed-upon time, the person who submitted the highest bid (and actually pays) gets shipped the item being sold.

    Very few eBay sales are local; almost all CgLst sales are local. I use CgList for inexpensive items that would cost a lot to ship and I use eBay for speciality items that I'm willing to ship anywhere in the world. I usually meet the actual buyer when using Craig's List. With eBay, I've sold to people in distant lands who don't speak English (by using web-translator cut-and-paste-text programs on international e-mails.)

    Craig's List is a lot cheaper than eBay, but it is much shorter in the amount of time that the listing remains in view. If an item doesn't sell (or attract interested buyers) within six to eight hours on Craig's List, then it most likely won't sell at all. Everything on eBay (usually) sells, but you might not get a high price for it. I've found that most things on eBay (especially electronic musical instruments) will bring the same price (within 10%) as identical items sold within the past month, regardless of how low the starting bid is or how long the auction period is.

    Ebay is also an excellent place to sell microchips and electronic components that can be bought for good discount in lots of 25 or 100 from electronic distributors with minimum orders. The surplus chips can be sold on eBay in lots of two or three each (Dutch auction style) for what you paid for them and shipped by mail in padded envelopes inexpensively.

    Basically, Ebay is a world marketplace for very specialized goods. It has high fees but it is very efficient. Craig's List is a local expansion of a garage sale that can use the internet to position sales in distant markets.

Buy It Now

[ToasterOven]

eBay is just mad because Craigslist isn't for sale using Buy It Now :-P

Re:IANAL

[Poisson the Fish]

The problem with this is that eBay also owns Kijiji, which is Craigslist's main competitor. I can see eBay merging them both if they get control of Craigslist. Then competition for eBay will be much diminished...

Re:would eBay sell craigslist on eBay or craigslis

[Samah]

I'd sell my stock right now for a sangwich!

Not just you...

[WiseWeasel]

Are you kidding me? On the Way? eBay is already pure, distilled evil and incompetence. The recent requirement to use Paypal for all transactions, the substantial rate hikes; everything they do is to leverage their captive userbase and squeeze more revenue out of them. They know they're the only serious worldwide game in town for what they do, and they're intent on exploiting that to the fullest. I, for one, can't wait to see them dethroned by someone and reduced to irrelevance, now that they've worn out all their goodwill.

From the eBay playbook...

[deniable]

Craigslist should just state that they're "not really a company" and their stock isn't stock. It works for ebay and paypal.

Public vs Private

[mlwmohawk]

There is a lot of speculation about what is and what is not legal in manipulating share value.

If craigslist is a private corporation, which is not publicly traded, then they do not have to abide by the rules that a publicly traded company does.

In fact, as a private corp, the majority of the share holders can vote for anything they like. They can vote to be non-profit, and as long as the ownership of the company decides this, it is done.

"Going public" is a process of accepting certain rules that a corporation does not need to do in order that their stock has some measurable value.

craigslist is awesome but

[sentientbrendan]

a little too minimalistic. Searching through their data for the perfect apartment or furniture can be kind of a pain given the limited sorts of information you can specify in a search.

If anyone were to do a better version of craigslist, it would be google. I'd like them to put some of their data mining and search expertise to work to be able to search over every apartment that is going to be on sale when I move.

I'm not sure where you found that San Francisco

[Trepidity]

The non-commercial, non-capitalist San Francisco doesn't seem to be one I've ever encountered. Are you talking about the same one that has one of the highest per-capita incomes of any city in the United States? Where the most recognizable element of the skyline is named after an insurance company? And where there's currently a flurry of building activity for luxury condos?

Re:I'm not sure where you found that San Francisco

[Anna Merikin]

Yeah, that one.

Toleration applies to everyone including greedheads.

After all, Craig partnered with a guy who preferred to sell his stake to eBay.

Re:would eBay sell craigslist on eBay or craigslis

[PawNtheSandman]

So how long before they force you to have a PayPal account on Craigslist despite the fact the deals are suppose to be done in person?

Re:would eBay sell craigslist on eBay or craigslis

[darthflo]

Since you seem to know your way around suing, I'd like to ask you a question I've been pondering for weeks now:
Can you legally sue yourself?
I was thinking about something along the lines of lending myself some money and failing to pay it back, but are open for other ideas.

Re:Ummm... unfairly?

[Deliveranc3]

" not everything "

I suppose but in the current world of technology it seems this statement is open to contention.