The Mountain View-based company is taking its first step toward that goal Thursday with the debut of a free service designed for high-tech neophytes looking for a simple way to share information with other people working in the same company or attending the same class in school.

With only a few clicks, just about anyone will be able to quickly set up and update a Web site featuring a wide array of material, including pictures, calendars and video from Google Inc.'s YouTube subsidiary, said Dave Girouard, general manager of the division overseeing the new application.

"We are literally adding an edit button to the Web," Girouard said.

All sites created on the service will run on one of Google's computers.

Google acquired many of the Web-site tools when it bought a Silicon Valley startup, JotSpot, last year.

The tools are the latest addition to a bundle of applications that Google offers to consumers and businesses as alternatives to similar products sold by Microsoft Corp., one of Google's fiercest rivals.

Google's latest service represents a challenge to Microsoft's SharePoint, which charges licensing fees. Google is unveiling its alternative just a few days before Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft hosts a SharePoint conference in Seattle.

While Microsoft's programs typically are installed on individual computers, Google keeps its application on its own machines so users can access them from anywhere with an Internet connection.

By gradually introducing free versions of word processing, spreadsheet, and calendaring programs over the past two years, Google has been threatening to siphon revenue away from Microsoft, which makes most of its money from software sales.

Microsoft, in turn, hopes to take a bite of out Google's bread-and-butter in online search and advertising by buying Yahoo Inc. for more than $40 billion.

Google says more than 500,000 companies, government agencies and schools use at least some of its applications. The company won't say how many of those organizations subscribe to a premium version of its software suite, but the fees haven't made much of a dent at Google so far.

Last year, Google's software licensing and other products generated $181 million in revenue while $16.4 billion poured in from advertising.

The European Union fined Microsoft Corp. a record $1.3 billion Wednesday for the amount it charges rivals for software information.

EU regulators said the company charged "unreasonable prices" until last October to software developers who wanted to make products compatible with the Windows desktop operating system.

The fine is the largest ever for a single company and brings to just under $2.5 billion the amount the EU has demanded Microsoft pay in a long-running antitrust dispute.

Microsoft immediately said the issues for which it was fined have been resolved and the company was making its products more open.

The fine comes less that a week after Microsoft said it would share more information about its products and technology in an effort to make it work better with rivals' software and meet the demands of antitrust regulators in Europe.

But EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes remained skeptical and said Microsoft was under investigation in two additional cases.

"Talk is cheap," Kroes said. "Flouting the rules is expensive."

Microsoft's actions have stifled innovation and affected millions of people around the world, Kroes said. She called the record 899 million euro fine "a reasonable response to a series of quite unreasonable actions."

"We could have gone as high as 1.5 billion euros ($2.23 billion)," she said. "The maximum amount is higher than what we did at the end of the day."

Microsoft fought hard against a March 2004 decision that led to a 497 million euro ($613 million) fine and an order that the software maker share interoperability information with rivals within 120 days. The company lost its appeal in that case in September.

Microsoft was fined $357 million in July 2006 for failing to obey that order.

The EU alleged that Microsoft withheld crucial interoperability information for desktop PC software -- where it is the world's leading supplier -- in an effort squeeze into a new market and damage rivals.

The company delayed compliance for three years, the EU said, only making changes in October to the patent licenses for companies that need data to create software that works with Microsoft.

Microsoft had initially set a royalty rate of 3.87 percent of a licensee's product revenues for patents and demanded that companies looking for communication information -- which it said was highly secret -- pay 2.98 percent of their products' revenues.

The EU complained last March that the rates were unfair. Under threat of fines, Microsoft two months later reduced the patent rate to 0.7 percent and the information license to 0.5 percent -- but only in Europe, leaving the worldwide rates unchanged.

The EU's Court of First Instance ruling that upheld regulators' views changed the company's mind again in October when it offered a new license for interoperability information for a flat fee of 10,000 euros ($14,900) and an optional worldwide patent license for a reduced royalty of 0.4 percent.

Network Solutions has forced millions of people to buy Internet domain names from them instead of cheaper competitors through a scheme that's netted the firm millions of dollars, a federal class action lawsuit filed today by Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP states. ICANN, whose policies facilitate the scheme, is also named in the suit, filed in U.S. District Court, Central District of California.

"Imagine if you asked a car dealer if they had a black convertible and were then forced to buy the car from them. Would you get a good deal? Each time someone asks Network Solutions about a domain name, the firm creates a monopoly for itself, forcing consumers to pay the price they demand," said Brian Kabateck, lead counsel in the class action and Kabateck Brown Kellner's Managing Partner.

Whenever someone searches for the availability of a domain name through Network Solutions' website, the company immediately registers the name for itself, preventing other companies from selling it and forcing consumers to pay Network Solutions' expensive fees.

If a consumer were to go to another, cheaper site to register the name, they would find the name is "unavailable." Consumers are never informed that inquiring as to a name's availability through Network Solutions results in the company holding a monopoly on selling that name.

This allows Network Solutions to continue charging substantially higher prices for domain name registration. Network Solutions charged $34.99 to register the name sought by this suit's lead plaintiff. A competitor would have charged $9.99.

Network Solutions' scheme is made possible by ICANN. ICANN allows companies that sell domain names to avoid paying registration fees for names cancelled within five days. Thus, Network Solutions can defraud customers at no cost to itself.

ICANN is aware that Network Solutions is abusing this policy and yet continues to facilitate its actions.

ICANN is the international organization, headquartered in Marina Del Rey, CA, that regulates domain names and other Internet protocols.

Kabateck Brown Kellner is one of the nation's foremost consumer law firms. Its clients have won more than $750 million against Google, Yahoo!, Farmer's Insurance, Eli Lilly and others. As a plaintiff's-only firm, Kabateck Brown Kellner is always on the consumers' side.

Electronic Arts Inc. is pushing ahead with a bid to take over upstart gaming rival Take-Two Interactive Software Inc., despite rebuffs from the smaller company.
EA said in a statement Sunday that it is making an all-cash bid of $26 per share, or about $2 billion, for New York-based Take-Two.

EA, the world's largest independent video game publisher, says it's releasing details of the proposal to get the attention of Take-Two shareholders after Take-Two's board turned down the deal. The offer represents a 64 percent premium over Take-Two's closing stock price Feb. 15, the last trading day before Redwood City-based EA made its proposal.

Take-Two did not immediately return messages seeking comment.

Takafumi Horie, former CEO of Internet service provider Livedoor, was found guilty last March of inflating earnings reports and sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison. Four other former executives were also found guilty.

Horie was not present Friday for the first hearing of his appeal at the Tokyo High Court, court spokesman Takahiro Ito said, refusing to release any further details of the court session.

Horie pleaded not guilty through his lawyers, according to head lawyer Yasuyuki Takai.

"First of all, (Horie) is not guilty," Takai said he told the court.

Horie and other top executives were arrested in January 2006, sparking a sell-off on the Tokyo Stock Exchange dubbed "Livedoor shock" over the downfall of the company and Horie, who had become a celebrity for his gutsy takeover attempts and flashy lifestyle.

The executives were accused of setting up a number of funds to do stock swaps and other stock trading to pad their books. Prosecutors said the complex schemes fabricated $46.2 million in profits.

Takai said Horie had no intention of evading the law in setting up the funds.

Although Horie's prison term was shorter than the four years demanded by prosecutors, it was considered harsh by Japanese standards, as executives charged with such white-collar crimes generally avoid prison terms.

Horie, a college dropout, became a millionaire by selling Livedoor stock at the height of their value. He drew widespread media attention for his aggressive get-rich-quick schemes, which struck a sharp contrast with the staid conformity of Japan's traditional business elite.

Horie was absent Friday "to prevent turmoil" in the court, Takai said. He said Horie plans to remain absent throughout his appeal trial, which is legal.

At its height, Livedoor drew a large number of individual investors, partly because of Horie's fame. Those investors, many of them amateurs at the stock market, suffered big losses when Livedoor shares nose-dived after Horie's arrest. The shares were later delisted.

The Livedoor case has prompted calls for clearer laws about stock trading and heavier penalties for falsifying earnings reports.

In its formal response, Yahoo said its board had concluded Microsoft's unsolicited offer "substantially undervalues" the Sunnyvale-based company.

Yahoo indicated it could be lured to the negotiating table if Microsoft ups the ante, without mentioning the price it has in mind.

"The board of directors is continually evaluating all of its strategic options in the context of the rapidly evolving industry environment and we remain committed to pursuing initiatives that maximize value for all stockholders," Yahoo said in a statement.

Investors appeared confident that Microsoft wants Yahoo badly enough to raise the stakes. Yahoo shares rose 25 cents to $29.45 in Monday's morning trading while Microsoft shares fell 48 cents to $28.08.

Yahoo's stock price had dropped by more than 40 percent in the three months leading to Microsoft's bid, valued at $31 per share when it was announced Feb. 1. The offer was 62 percent above Yahoo's market value at the time.

Many analysts believe Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft will eventually raise its bid to $35 to $40 per share, sweetening the pot by $5 billion to $12 billion in an effort to negotiate an amicable sale.

Microsoft was prepared to pay at least $40 per share for Yahoo a year ago, according to a person familiar with the talks between the two companies a year ago. Yahoo wasn't interested then because it was confident in its own strategy, said the person, who didn't want to be identified because Microsoft's 2007 offer was never publicly disclosed.

But a higher bid now could hurt Microsoft's own stock price, which has been slipping amid concerns that a Yahoo takeover could be more trouble than its worth. Microsoft's market value has plunged by more than $40 billion, or 14 percent, since the bid was made public.

Microsoft representatives didn't immediately respond to requests for comment Monday morning.

As the world awaits Yahoo Inc.'s response to Microsoft Corp.'s bold bid to buy the Internet giant, one analyst has come out with an intriguing take on the proposed marriage: It's probably a ploy. Trip Chowdhry of Global Equities Research speculated Thursday that Microsoft made the stunning $44.6 billion merger proposal as a way to block a possible alliance between Yahoo and another Internet behemoth, Amazon.com.

Chowdry also believes the Microsoft-Yahoo merger will not pass muster with regulators, even if Yahoo accepts the bid.

That analysis runs counter to the predominant view of financial and industry analysts who believe that, while the deal faces many challenges, Microsoft's plan to gobble up Yahoo will likely succeed. More on the Battle for Yahoo.

But Chowdhry said he believes Microsoft made an astoundingly high offer that it knows cannot be matched by other potential buyers and will likely be rejected by US and European regulators. In his view, Microsoft's gambit puts Yahoo in a tough bind.

"I call it strategic deception," he said in an interview. "Now, Yahoo is in limbo. ...If they accept, DOJ will reject it. If they reject it, shareholders will say, 'What are you doing?'"
In his research note, he speculated that "Microsoft's offer to acquire Yahoo was probably a preemptive move to block a potential Amazon.com and Yahoo merger."

Chowdhry said that, based on his checks with contacts in the tech industry, Yahoo was considering shutting down its e-commerce offering and forming a business tie with Amazon.com. He compared this move with Yahoo's decision to shut down its own music store in favor of Real Networks' Rhapsody.

"Contacts feel it is likely that these discussions could be taking a form of an Amazon.com and Yahoo merger, which Microsoft probably did not like," he wrote in the note Thursday.
Yahoo spokeswoman May Petry said the company will not comment on rumors or speculations.

Chowdhry cited Microsoft's failed bid to acquire Intuit Inc. in the mid-1990s which was challenged by the US Justice Department.

"Microsoft has been convicted of past monopolistic behavior - this makes this deal even more tougher to get approval," he said in his note. "Yahoo's management should make sure not to fall into the trap of a potentially fake bid, as Microsoft itself probably may be knowing that the chances of the deal going through is unlikely." Other analysts believe the deal will likely be approved by US and European authorities given Google Inc.'s dominant position in online advertising.

In a research note published Thursday, UBS analyst Heather Bellini said that while the regulatory review will be "complex" in the US and Europe, the proposed could get approved although "the companies could potentially have to divest services such as e-mail or instant messaging to make the combined company more amenable to regulators."