Dear Mang - here, I got to give credit to CSCO [or should I say Mr Chambers] communication skills. Yes, CSCO has mentioned it wanted to partner with LU or NT; however, until both scenarios [NT merging with BAY and LU suing CSCO,] the notion of partnership seems to suggest some strategic alliance [albeit in a very large scope.] While you and I are both outsiders and can only decipher from the PRs, why, if you use your argument that CSCO was responsible for NT's fortune, then CSCO was also responsible for LU's fortune! I mean, while you certainly can interpret partnership as merger , I don't think they are the same.
In a way you are right, by no means dissing CSCO, for I think CSCO's shareholders have a sure bet, I think WS is so enamoured with CSCO that it can do no wrong. One analyst went so far as to think LU suing CSCO because LU was weak - well, he can certainly say that, but LU has just figured out what to do with its 25,000 active patents dated all the way back to its Bell Lab days.
Back to CSCO's communicative genius, look at it today, after failing to achieve its goal to partner with either NT or LU, the alchemist then said it will look after its shareholder by not having a mega-merger. And the street cheers <SG>! In that sense, I wish BAY had such a PR genius [note: I think Mr House is a no-nonsense standup guy who can get things done - which is my kind of CEO - but he certainly is not slick enough to wow the street with superficiality]
best, Bosco |
