[super_sloth]

That's because this was never about Microsoft investing in the Nook.

Microsoft's investment was really just a settlement with Barnes and Noble in everything other than name.

Microsoft sued B&N (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12814018) for infringing on the patents it's been collecting royalties from Android manufacturers for. B&N then counter-sued (http://www.phonearena.com/news/Barnes---Noble-countersues-Mi...).

Once Microsoft invested in the Nook business, the whole thing got dropped. Makes you wonder if Microsoft were concerned that B&N actually putting up a fight might bring the whole of their lucrative Android licensing business in jeopardy.

[ChuckMcM]

This is my understanding as well. Most of the people Microsoft has sued for android patents have had some other part of the business that would go sideways if Microsoft withheld something (usually Windows) from them. B&N had no such weakness and so could see a patent suit all the way to the supreme court if it wanted, and since the Nook wasn't doing great anyway, the only 'downside' for B&N was that the Nook subbusiness went out of business.

So very uneven on the risk/reward equation for Microsoft. They finesse it by "investing" and getting another "licensee" for their patents.

[CapitalistCartr]

Also, Microsoft worries about Google, Android, Amazon cutting into their business. Like most large corporations, some investments are defensive. If Nook had gone better, it might have given MS a toehold in that camp.

[kyllo]

Yeah, I always saw it as a strategic "me too" product investment in response to Amazon Kindle.