Yahoo! Inc.'s (NASDAQ: YHOO) fortunes seem to have shifted in the last few months, with purchases like BlueLithium and Zimbra firming up the company's strategy inside targeted consumer behavior (when it comes to online ads and purchases) and corporate email. In fact, those two acquisitions sound like knives in the collective backs of Google, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) and Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ: MSFT), respectively. Google's future revenue enterprise may rest on more efficiently connecting buyers and sellers, and Microsoft's presence in the corporate email market with its Exchange product is huge.

So, when I hear of Yahoo! starting to possibly de-emphasize the premium services that former CEO Terry Semel trumpeted from the top of his lungs back in 2002, it just shows how things have changed in the internet portal marketplace. No longer are customers willing to pay to receive services they can get elsewhere for free. Add that on top of the Google-led shift to advertising as a sole revenue source and away from a paid-customer model, and Yahoo! seems to finally be acknowledging that it may need to follow suit.

First up is the Yahoo! Music business, which runs a music subscription model (monthly paid service) that, according to sources, is not doing too well. With so many other competitors in the market for downloadable music, this comes as little surprise. I have to wonder how many resources have been dumped into Yahoo! Music thus far, or if it has ever made money? Marketing dollars and headcount will be moving into other strategic areas it appears, and I'll surmise that Yahoo! Music won't be the only premium (paid) service to come under the microscope soon.

Target Corp. (NYSE: TGT) had better watch its game when it comes to using trademarks and copyrights to sell its store brands. In that vein, former tennis great Andre Agassi has volleyed a lawsuit against the nation's second-largest discount retailer for failing to notify (read: pay) him for using his name on the retailer's store brand of men's sandals. A quick look at Target's website shows no shoes with the term "Agassi," so the retailer may have already pulled them from being sold.

Perhaps Agassi was strolling through a Target store recently and saw this abhorrent product (well, not likely; maybe his lawyer did) and thought a little proper PR was needed now that he is retired. Jokes aside, I am not sure what Target men's merchandising execs were thinking when they named a men's sandal line "Agassi" in the first place. Was the coffee not flowing that morning or something?

In addition to the sandals showing up on Target's website, they were also available for purchase on Amazon.com (NASDAQ: AMZN), since that e-tailer handles Target's e-commerce duties. As issue are over 52,000 pairs of the sandals to which the name "Agassi" was attached without permission. Now, that name does not legally belong to just Andre, so if Target found a 'designer' with that name, it will have a leg to stand on (and serve with). Otherwise, expect these sandals to disappear fast, with some making their way to eBay as collector's editions or something equally ridiculous.

If I were Susan Decker, I'd be rollicked with mixed emotions. On one hand, the long-awaited exit of Terry Semel as Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO) CEO gives Sue a lot of room to get on with her company's renovation. She's often been seen as Yahoo!'s strongest leader and most talented executive; Semel's resignation really makes the company hers in a way it never could be before. In December, her promotion to Executive Vice President, Head of Advertiser and Publisher Group made her the heir apparent. And she's been named President, surely a lovely title reminiscent of ultimate power.

But on the other hand, this is a corporation, and the real power is in the position of Chief Executive Officer -- the job we all know she should (if she has half the ambition she seems) truly desire. Not only that, but the rest of the world agrees she's the best candidate for the position. This perfect opportunity to give her the title for which her career has been grooming her? It's been passed over, and we all have to wonder: what were they thinking? and, will she ever be the bride? and, if you were her, wouldn't you be updating your profile on HotJobs about now?

Every deep discussion of the Semel resignation contains the same perplexed question. Various answers to the why not Sue? conundrum include "because she's not an outsider" and "I just don't know." Could it be because she doesn't have the coding geek background? Because she's a woman? Or is the board really (as many suggest, but I don't buy) just biding their time until ... something ... to name her CEO?

Come on. If Susan was going to be named CEO, now would be the time. Why put off any longer? If the board really was happy with her in the role, the job would be hers, effective immediately. Last time they reorganized the entire company to give her a new-and-improved title. This one, to me, says "you know honey, maybe you're just not CEO material." What do you think?

Hewlett-Packard Company (NYSE: HPQ) is suing Acer Inc. (TPE: 2353), accusing the company of infringing on 5 HP patents related to PC technology.

While Hewlett-Packard recently became the biggest PC company in the world, Acer (number 4) is gaining fast, producing inexpensive computers that are available at big box retailers like Wal-Mart.

As an internet user on a limited budget, I'll be greatly disappointed if Acer's line of inexpensive but functional computers get more expensive. Acer's shares are traded in Taiwan. One way to gauge how much concern there is about the lawsuit is to follow the trading of Acer shares.

Cisco is suing Apple, the company announced a few minutes ago, seeking an injunction against the use of the money title: "iPhone."

I was surfing around in my thrill over the new Apple, Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) "revolutionary" mobile phone yesterday, when I came across a post ruminating about the meaning behind a terse announcement from Cisco Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ:CSCO). Paul Kedrosky was wondering whether it meant, basically, "Apple's caved on our demands," or, "Apple told us to screw off; expect to hear from our lawyers!"

I thought to myself, "sounds like a screw-off to me!" but then again, I'm one to read the worst between-the-lines. It's way more fun.

Turns out, the fun is truth and Apple will be defending itself if it wants to keep the little "i" in front of its phone. It's interesting to note that the company just dropped the "i" in front of "TV" yesterday (and not, as far as I know, because of any competitive or legal threat). Kedrosky called the suit "magnificently silly stuff" on the news.

It's magnificent, all right. But silly? A trademark is a trademark, am I right? Or does Apple, just by virtue of its ubiquity, deserve rights to little "i"s no matter where they appear?

Each year, International Business Machines Corp. (NYSE:IBM) spends about $6 billion on R&D. It not only allows the company to launch better products -- but is also a source of licensing revenues. And the occasional lawsuit, such as the one filed against Amazon.com. The amount? Like most of these kinds of suits, it is unspecified. IBM's suit covers five patents, which cover things like storage, customer recommendations and other common features that any e-commerce company would provide.

Interestingly enough, IBM filed its case in Texas, which tends to be favorable to patent-holders. But, one thing is certain: patent litigation is time-consuming. So, unless there is a settlement (which does not seem like something Amazon.com likes to do), expect this case to continue for several years.

And, as seen with the stock price of Amazon.com, investors seem blissfully unconcerned. The stock is up this morning after the news by 24 cents to $32.81.

Tom Taulli is the author of various books, including the Complete M&A Handbook and operates InvestorOffering.com.