[waterlesscloud]

The article presents an interesting point of view that I think is probably goes too far. It's not Marc's fault if the giant lumbering behemoths that buy companies don't know what to do with them. That's almost intrinsic in their natures, actually, that they'll screw it up. Even the best tech companies do it time and again, and with very good properties.

But this line in particular stands out- "...buy its stake in the shadowy secondary market instead."

Come on. Shadowy? Really? Making it sound like he's buying plutonium or something.

[mcphilip]

A recent WSJ article uses the same terminology [1]. Also, it's common to refer to things as shadowy in financial markets. Shadow banking system, dark pools of liquidity, etc. Calling something a shadow market is a way to describe a market characterized by asymmetric information, basically.

[1] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870389970457620...

[waterlesscloud]

Fair point, though I do think there's a notable difference in implications of "shadow market" and "shadowy market", more than the one extra letter would indicate.

[ardillamorris]

From the point of view that public markets are accesible to everyone - the secondary market is like a grey market: there's limited information, likelihood of anonymity and weak controls. With that in mind, I would call it "shadowy".

Also, I think making money on timing the market is not a bad thing. To each his own. However, timing the market does not create value. It is merely displacing value or what they call a zero-sum game. I don't think the article goes too far in displaying MA as someone playing that game. In fact, makes the point so valid that it's hard to argue that he has created some sort of permanent value. Other than netscape, the FB board seat is just a fancy chair...

[ma2rten]

Actually I think it is quite normal for almost any kind of transaction not to get broadcasting publicity. I fail to see how that is shadowy.

Anyway, why would staring Netscape not be enough value already? After all he himself wrote the Mosic browser that became the basis for all of today's browser. I think very few people have produced more "value" in their lives.

I also don't like the tone of voice of the article. It's pretty much a personal attack only based on the fact that he makes a lot of money.

[cube13]

>Anyway, why would staring Netscape not be enough value already? After all he himself wrote the Mosic browser that became the basis for all of today's browser. I think very few people have produced more "value" in their lives.

No, he was a part of the team that wrote the Mosaic browser. Eric Bina was the other major contributor. Mosaic was not a solo project like the first version of Linux. It was a team effort.