That’s the cheeky slogan of a new Verizon ad reportedly set to debut during tonight’s “Monday Night Football” game. Riffing on the tagline from Apple’s iPhone commercials, it essentially turns widespread complaints about the quality, coverage and speed of AT&T’s network into a Verizon marketing campaign–if it wasn’t that already. “Browse the Web and download music and apps, at 3G speed, in five times more places than the nation’s number two wireless carrier,” the ad suggests. “Before you pick a phone, pick a network.”

Quite the sucker punch from Verizon, and a well-timed one too. AT&T’s iPhone exclusivity deal is set to expire sometime next year. And recent reports suggest that Apple, by signing on Verizon as a second carrier partner, could double U.S. iPhone sales in the near term. Verizon (VZ) pointing a mocking finger at AT&T (T) in an ad like this certainly isn’t going to do anything to make AT&T’s negotiations with Apple (AAPL) go any more smoothly.

UPDATE:

Here’s the ad:

[Image Credit: TechFlash]

“It is because the parties wish to work with the DOJ to the fullest extent possible that they have engaged, and plan to continue to engage, in negotiations,” the groups wrote in their request to U.S. District Judge Denny Chin. “Nevertheless, it is clear that the complex issues raised…preclude submission of an amended agreement by Oct. 7.” And with that they asked if they could return to the court Nov. 6 with a revised settlement and a new timeline for hearings.

Though it’s not yet clear what form the revised settlement might take or what adjusted terms are being discussed, the opposition is already crowing over it. “This is a huge victory for the many people and organizations who raised significant concerns that this settlement did not serve the public interest, stifled innovation, and restricted competition,” the Open Book Alliance, an ad hoc group led by some of Google’s largest rivals, said in a post to its blog. “It’s also an enormous loss for Google, which had been saying for months that no changes were necessary to the settlement. Now, that settlement, as we know it, is dead.”

That said, it’s also entirely possible that there will be no official announcement tomorrow. After all, we’ve been hearing reports like those above about the Apple (AAPL) iPhone in China for quite a while now and these negotiations are quite complex. As Dan Butterfield at iPhonAsia notes, “I am skeptical that an Apple/China Unicom iPhone deal announcement will come on Friday as there are likely two iPhones in the approval pipeline–models A1324 and A1325. The WiFi enabled model (A1325) may still be in CTTL testing and Apple may not want to make a deal official until both iPhones have received their network access licenses, which could take another month or so.”

This morning, a report in Shanghai Securities News claimed the two companies had reached an agreement that grants China Unicom three years of exclusivity. The terms are said to call for the carrier to purchase iPhones from Apple for 3,000 yuan ($439) each and guarantee annual sales of one million to two million units and at least five billion yuan ($732 million) in annual revenue.

At present, there is no revenue-sharing agreement. That had become a sticking point in negotiations and Apple (AAPL) seems to have foregone it in order to finalize the deal.

But has an overall agreement really been reached? As I noted earlier, state-run media claim it has. China Unicom, however, says otherwise.

“We have made progress but there are still some problems to be resolved,” a Unicom spokesperson told AFP. “Both sides have their own timeframe for an agreement but essentially it depends on the practical progress of the negotiations.”

That said, it seems clear that an agreement will be reached. Certainly, China Unicom would be foolish to balk at this point. To win the right to be the sole supplier of the iPhone in the world’s largest mobile market for three years would go a long way toward bolstering Unicom’s weak performance and make it easier for it to compete against rivals China Mobile and China Telecom.

Whether that is a true vote of confidence remains to be seen. Certainly, Yahoo (YHOO) made similar remarks about Jerry Yang during its ill-starred negotiations with Microsoft (MSFT), and we all know how that worked out for him…

Shares in the company dropped more than 27 percent percent to $6.48 in premarket trading following reports that Sun’s board rejected a formal acquisition offer by IBM (IBM). After weeks of negotiations, the two companies were thought to be finalizing a deal for about $7 billion. But IBM lowered its offer over the weekend and then withdrew it after Sun balked at the price and terms of the sale. IBM is believed to have originally offered $10 and $11 a share for Sun, but subsequently reduced that bid to $9.40 a share, which was a bit too low for the fading company’s taste.

Seems Sun (JAVA) has quite a bit more in common with Yahoo (YHOO), which notoriously balked at a $44 billion buyout offer from Microsoft (MSFT) last year, than you’d think.

Whether the deal is dead is unclear, but things certainly aren’t looking good–for future negotiations and for Sun, as Sanford Bernstein & Co. analyst Toni Sacconaghi suggested in a research note to clients this morning. “While press reports suggest that the fall-out in discussions may be attributable to brinkmanship, we do think that a collapse in the talks has considerably weakened Sun’s hand, as we see no other likely suitors, and a considerably higher potential for weakened (fiscal year third quarter) results,” he wrote. “… Given the size of the premium and the fact that Sun’s board has presided over a decline in the company’s stock price over the last eight years from over $250/share to less than $5 prior to the acquisition talks being leaked, we believe that (Sun Microsystems) is likely to face significant shareholder unrest, similar to what occurred when Yahoo declined Microsoft’s offer.”

Which means things are about to get ugly–really ugly–for Sun, which doesn’t appear to have any other likely suitors and will almost certainly see its third-quarter results weakened by the doubt it has just instilled in potential customers.

This afternoon, just a few hours after announcing the not-with-a-bang-but-a-whimper conclusion of its negotiations with Microsoft (MSFT), Yahoo (YHOO) said it had inked a non-exclusive search-advertising deal with Google that could, could, be worth about $800 million in annual revenues.

Yahoo explained the deal in another one of its retina-tormenting purple-font press releases entitled “Yahoo to Strengthen Competitive Position in Online Advertising Through Non-Exclusive Agreement With Google.”

Under the terms of the agreement, Yahoo will select the search term queries for which–and the pages on which–Yahoo may offer Google paid search results. Yahoo will define its users’ experience and will determine the number and placement of the results provided by Google and the mix of paid results provided by Panama, Google or other providers. The agreement applies to paid search and content match and does not apply to algorithmic search.”

Yahoo! believes that this agreement will enable the Company to better monetize Yahoo!’s search inventory in the United States and Canada. At current monetization rates, this is an approximately $800 million annual revenue opportunity. In the first 12 months following implementation, Yahoo! expects the agreement to generate an estimated $250 million to $450 million in incremental operating cash flow.”

And what might it generate for Google? The companies are hoping for at least $83 million gross — every 4 months. From Yahoo’s latest SEC filing:

Google may terminate the Services Agreement if, after ten months after the Services are first launched, and each month thereafter, the gross revenues recognized by Google under the Services Agreement are less than $83,333,333 for the four prior calendar months.

Anyway … although the two companies are not required to receive regulatory approval for the deal before moving ahead with it, they’ve helpfully agreed to delay implementation for up to three and a half months while the U.S. Department of Justice reviews the arrangement. “We have been in contact with regulators about this arrangement, and we expect to work closely with them to answer their questions about the transaction,” Google’s Omid Kordestani wrote in a post to the company’s blog. “Ultimately we believe that the efficiencies of this agreement will help preserve competition.”

[Image Credit: AdRants]

Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock lashed out against Icahn late yesterday, claiming the activist investor’s recent allegations about the company’s mismanagement “seriously manipulates the facts.” In a fiery public letter, Bostock decried Icahn’s attack as one based on “a series of unsubstantiated allegations from a complaint filed in a Delaware court, which grossly misstate the very clear record and position established by the Yahoo Board.” And noting Microsoft’s apparent disinterest in renewing merger talks, he said Icahn is mistaken in his belief that Microsoft (MSFT) still wants a deal. “I know you are aware that we have reached out to Microsoft proactively and met with them many times in the last several weeks,” Bostock wrote. “During this period, their message to us and to the markets has been and remains that they are not interested in pursuing a full acquisition of Yahoo.”

Sadly, Bostock notes, Icahn seems to be under the impression that somehow Microsoft will come back to the negotiating table for a full acquisition of Yahoo. But assuming it doesn’t, what then? “Conspicuously absent from your letter is any credible plan for Yahoo other than a repetition of your insistence that the company should sell itself to Microsoft,” Bostock wrote. “Indeed, your stated view that ‘the only way to salvage Yahoo in the long if not short run is to merge with Microsoft’ demonstrates that you have no other plan and causes one to wonder what exactly would happen to our company if you and your nominees were to take control of Yahoo.”

Zing … Of course, the irony of Bostock’s parting shot is that it could also be said of Yahoo and its current board. What’s their big plan … other than refusing a buyout offer that put a 62% premium on the company’s share price?

“Until now I naively believed that self-destructive doomsday machines were fictional devices found only in James Bond movies,” Icahn wrote, referring to Yahoo’s highly unusual severance plan that would have rewarded employees who left the company after a change in ownership. “I never believed that anyone would actually create and activate one in real life. I guess I never knew about Yang and the Yahoo Board.”

Doomsday machines? James Bond movies? Did Yahoo appoint Richard Kiel to its board and not tell anyone?

Oh, and by the way, the name’s Icahn … Carl Icahn.

His letter follows.

Dear Mr. Bostock:

I have long been cynical about the effectiveness of many of the boards and CEOs in this country and as a result the inability of our companies to compete. I have constantly complained about how far CEOs and boards will go in order to retain their jobs, yet even I am amazed at the length Jerry Yang and the Yahoo board have gone to in order to entrench their positions and keep shareholders from deciding if they wished to sell to Microsoft.

According to details in a complaint that I became aware of yesterday (details Yahoo fought to keep under seal), Jerry Yang and a majority of the board went to inordinate lengths to sabotage a Microsoft bid. The complaint states: “Viewing employee retention as Microsoft’s Achilles heel, Yang engineered an ingenious defense creating huge incentives for a massive employee walkout in the aftermath of a change in control. The plan gives each of Yahoo’s 14,000 full-time employees the right to quit his or her job and pocket generous termination benefits at any time during the two years following a takeover, by claiming a ’substantive adverse alteration’ in job duties or responsibilities.” The damage to Microsoft “is compounded by the fact that Yahoo’s thousands of engineers, known as ‘Technical Yahoos!,’ have detailed job responsibilities and qualifications.”

Most importantly, Microsoft might never be able to trust a CEO and board who, while claiming to be negotiating in good faith, went behind their back and adopted a “plan” which not only sabotages any Microsoft acquisition but went so far as to completely disable its own ability to rescind the “plan” as long as Microsoft’s offer remains pending. Until now I naively believed that self-destructive doomsday machines were fictional devices found only in James Bond movies. I never believed that anyone would actually create and activate one in real life. I guess I never knew about Yang and the Yahoo Board. In my opinion, it will be extremely difficult for Microsoft or other companies to trust, work with and negotiate with a company that would go to these lengths.

It is insulting to shareholders that Yahoo for the last month has told us that they are quite willing to negotiate a sale of the company to Microsoft and cannot understand why Microsoft has walked away. However, the board conveniently neglected to inform shareholders about the magnitude of the plan it installed which made it practically impossible for Microsoft to stay at the bargaining table. Could this have been the problem?

Even more deceitful are Yahoo’s actions toward its own employees, for whom you claimed to have set up the “plan”. Management neglected to mention to these same employees that Microsoft in its proposals had earmarked $1.5 billion of retention incentives (representing over $100,000 per employee) meant to allay any employee concerns.

Ironically, according to the complaint, this is not the first time that Yahoo has denied shareholders the opportunity of selling to Microsoft at a large premium. According to the complaint, in January 2007 Microsoft offered to purchase Yahoo at $40 per share but the company rejected that proposal. On January 31, 2008, Steve Ballmer emailed a letter to Jerry Yang and Roy Bostock making a new proposal of $31 per share. The letter recounts Microsoft’s prior efforts to acquire Yahoo and noted that Microsoft had given Yahoo time to implement business strategies designed to turn the company around. These strategies obviously didn’t work. The letter went on to state: “Our proposal represents a 62% premium above the closing price of Yahoo! common stock of $19.18 on January 31, 2008.” Yahoo not only turned down this proposal but sabotaged it. An article in CNET News cited in the complaint sums it up by stating, “Yahoo may indeed agree to Microsoft’s [offer], but it will be over Jerry Yang’s dead body”.

I and many of your shareholders believe that the only way to salvage Yahoo in the long if not short run is to merge with Microsoft. However, because of HSR considerations, to complete a merger of this magnitude will take a period of time. Even if by some stretch of the imagination the Yahoo board finally determines to do the rational thing and sell the company, I fear that, in light of Yang and the board’s recent actions in response to Microsoft’s overtures, it may be too late to convince Microsoft to trust Yang and the current board to run the company during that period while Microsoft sits on the sidelines with $45 billion at risk. Therefore, the best chance to bring Microsoft and Yahoo together is to replace Yang and the current Yahoo board with a board that will negotiate in good faith with Microsoft and in whom Microsoft will have trust to operate the company during the long period between signing and closing.

You stated in a press release yesterday that, “Yahoo’s board of directors including Jerry Yang has been crystal clear that it would consider any proposal by Microsoft that was in the best interests of its shareholders.” However this is not crystal clear to me. You have allegedly turned down a $40 offer. You have turned down and sabotaged a $33 offer. Instead, you appear willing to negotiate an “alternative” deal that in my opinion will be worth less than $33 but will entrench the board and Jerry Yang. I understand how these actions are in the best interests of management and a board whose members each receive $40,000 per month for several days work, but it is hard for me to understand how these actions are in the “best interests of the shareholders.”

However, despite your actions to date, there is still some possibility that you can resuscitate a Microsoft offer for the company. The board can rescind the “severance plan” that is the largest impediment to a Microsoft deal. You currently can do this because Microsoft withdrew their bid 30 days ago. It is time for you to stop misleading your shareholders with respect to Microsoft. It has been reported today that when asked to talk about the Microsoft bid, Sue Decker indicated that Microsoft made an offer which Yahoo’s board didn’t feel was at an attractive enough price. However, one doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to realize there is a simple method to possibly achieve a higher price. Simply rescind the poison pill “severance plan”, which would free up approximately $2.4 billion and possibly even more which could be added to the bid. It is also time to admit to your shareholders that the severance plan was not done for your employees (who you conveniently neglected to inform that Microsoft had earmarked $1.5 billion in retention incentives for), but rather was done simply as an entrenchment device and to impede a Microsoft bid. If you are not completely disingenuous in your protestations concerning doing “the right thing” for shareholders, you should rescind the severance plan expeditiously and determine if Microsoft is still willing to purchase our company and thereby create a true competitor for Google. I can only hope that you will finally do what is in the “best interests of the shareholders.”

Sincerely yours,

CARL C. ICAHN

Now that investor-tormentor Carl Icahn has filed a proxy slate to unseat Yahoo’s board with the intent, one way or another, to push the company back into merger negotiations with Microsoft (MSFT), an obviously panicked Yahoo (YHOO) is scrambling to pull together a search-ad deal with Google (GOOG).

The possibility of a search-ad outsourcing arrangement between the two companies was, in part, what caused Microsoft to lose its appetite for Yahoo. Could it cause Icahn to lose his as well? Seems doubtful. Even if, as sources close to the situation tell the New York Post, the deal is the sort of open-to-all-comers arrangement Yahoo and Google hope would pass regulatory scrutiny. Under its terms, a real-time auction system would be used to select the most lucrative ads for a given search query from among those sold by Yahoo, Google or anyone else that cares to participate. Structured in this way, the deal might not, as Microsoft has claimed in the past, consolidate over 90% of the search-advertising market in Google’s hands and draw the ire of antitrust regulators.

Instead it might consolidate, oh say … 89.99% in the search sovereign’s hands. Said Kevin Lee, chairman of search engine marketing firm Did-It, “Given the way the ecosystem is put together now, Google would probably be the winner in a vast majority of cases.”