The latest roundup of the action happening in Silicon Valley:
First evidence of YouTube wealth — What do you do with your money, when you get it? One way is to spend $20 million to buy Andre Agassi’s Tiburon estate. That’s what Stuart Peterson, of Artis Capital Management, an investor in YouTube, did, as PE Week’s Alex Haislip reports. Or you can invest it into night clubs, as some Web entrepreneurs have done.
Google Answers shuts down, while Yahoo Answers booms — This is one more confirmation that Google does best with automation. It started its answering service before Yahoo did, yet was blown away by Yahoo. Google is not adept at the messy business of getting humans involved. Yahoo claims 60 million unique users of Yahoo Answers. It just signed a deal with Answers.com, too. This is a rare victory for Yahoo, and should encourage it to stay focused on its relative advantage at implementing “community”-oriented projects.
Allow comments anywhere on your site — There are some places on blogs or web sites where comments aren’t enabled by the site’s software. So Lev Walkin, a Cisco Security Engineer out of Santa Clara, has come up with a way to let you place them pretty much anywhere, called JS-Kit (via Techcrunch).
Will U.S. Supreme Court brake global warming action? — The future of many clean-tech start-ups here in Silicon Valley depends in part on Washington. The U.S. Supreme Court is deciding whether California can move ahead with strict pollution controls. In European, meanwhile, the opposite is happening. Brussels is forcing stricter controls on member states, rather than braking.
Danger raises $10.3 million from Sharp –This deal makes sense, because Sharp is building a Danger “hiptop” device, similar to the one distributed by T-Mobile, to run Danger’s software. Also, in case you missed it, see the update on our recent snarky post about Danger and its IPO. Hank Nothhaft took exception, and we clarified some facts. He says the company’s valuation has increased, which is a good sign.
Fuddy U.S. companies on London’s AIM — Now the Brits are suddenly asking why the U.S. companies going public on the London alternative stock market AIM are doing so poorly. Two thirds of them are losing money for investors. Could the reason be that the only reason U.S. companies listing on AIM is because 1) they couldn’t do it in the U.S., or 2) they couldn’t raise money from private equity investors (or venture capitalists) at a time when it is very easy to raise money?