zlacker

>>lostms+(OP)
Not sure how MSFT usually handles it, but when I was acqui-hired (by a different large tech company, not quite on MSFT scale, but no trifle) I dealt almost exclusively with a person from Business Development. Maybe it is a bad sign that they had you discussing with people in their engineering group directly. Sounds like they were gathering data from you with no real plan to acquire. Then again every company may do it differently.

For me, there were some questions about my technology, but not a lot. Mostly we agreed on terms, and then they came up with a 40 page contract :) (the bus-dev guy said they don't really treat a small acquisition like mine that much differently than a larger acquisition in terms of contract verbiage). I had my lawyers (no I did not have any before this offer), review it.

But overall I felt that someone, who later I'm pretty sure turned out to be the CEO, had told their Business Development guy, just acquire this thing (and bring him along if you can), so they just went about doing that and it came out ok.

>>fraggl+gc
Out of curiosity, how long the process took until the deal was signed?

>>lostms+Sj
I had to go back and look it was a while back, it took longer than I remembered it. The initial reach out was in May 2011. I had some initial conversation with them in May and June, sent them some overview of the company, etc. Then didn't hear back for a while. In December 2011 conversations started back up. By then the company had actually launched a product where they could see my business being useful. I sent them some small amount of data as a sample. I had actually proposed a simpler lower cost proposal of them just purchasing the data they wanted and not the business or acquiring me to work there. Anyway sometime at beginning of Feb 2012, things started to move faster and then it was done by beginning of March 2012. So in my mind/memory it was really January 2012 to beginning of March but really started in May 2011.

>>fraggl+3n
Thanks for sharing the timeline. These things take far longer than anyone realizes.

>>haltin+tu
Lots of times the process starts through some mid-level manager expressing interest in a possible m&a, and initiating what I'd call "casual" due diligence, along the lines of what the PP described. The issue here, from the target's pov, is that the person/team sponsoring the research/engagement isn't empowered to execute an acquisition -- ultimately, they're just performing research to build a business case that validates the viability of the purchase, and helps provides insights sufficient to guide the acquiring company's deal team on desirable base contract terms & structures. All this feels like it's an acquisition moving quickly to small companies that haven't been through it before, but it really isn't. Only after the corporate development analysts & attorneys get involved will it move quickly, but that's primarily for two reasons: 1) the due diligence is already largely completed, and 2) they hold the purse strings.

Note that it's pretty common for years to pass between the first and second stages of this process, and there are any number of reasons why acquisition negotiations can either suddenly accelerate (it becomes competitive, partnering isn't going to work as a fallback, the target is going out of business, the acquiring company needs to unload cash fast, ...) or slow down (partnering becomes more desirable than acquisition, 1st party development becomes competitive, various legal reasons intervene, business strategy shifts away from whatever made the acquisition interesting in the first place, org changes shift the focus away from the acquisition, ...).