SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : AUTOHOME, Inc
ATHM 25.05+2.9%3:59 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: GBarr who wrote (22671)5/26/2000 9:20:00 PM
From: ahhaha  Read Replies (2) of 29970
 
My point, however, was trying to figure out whether T had any options at all here and hence leverage to get favorable terms.

Why try to figure out that?

whether T had the leverage to get out of the exclusivity agreements as part of the divestiture for if AOL wanted out as well, UMG has a bargaining chip.

I don't understand "leverage to get out". Why would AOL want out? What bargaining chip does UMG need? UMG will be owned by Att. No?

It does not necessarilly follow that because T sells its stake the exclusivity provisions expire.

This is true, but it is only transiently so.

For example, that would not be the case if one of the MSOs sold their interests in ATHM.

Not necessarily. The cable partner agreements between ATHM and MSO are varied and complex. The agreements in some cases extend to the new owner of the interests, but I that may expire 2002. It's hard to know because C & C have extended and re-written their agreements.

However, the contracts themselves may have an out in the case of a DOJ divestiture.

This is the whole ball of wax. I believe this decree goes far beyond what may have been intended. In this case the contracts are superseded by this "eminent domain" status that has been invoked or incurred by the decree. Maybe you can tighten up on this terminology I'm using.

With respect to the proposed consent decree, remember only T is a party to it so it is not binding at all upon TWX or RR and therefore by itself may not effect the exclusivity rights of RR.

Ah, but the state that has been invoked by the decree does supersede contracts and rights previously struck. Att must divest and that means they dispose their working interest in RR. When they do that it will go to one or more new operators. The users then have the right to choose what ISP they wish to have, because what forced the issue of divestiture was a decree from the government and so the domain of responsibility is national. Do you see what I'm getting at in this awkward way which needs more rigor?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News