Interesting idea, but I think it would be a mistake in many ways. I think the real valuable part of RIM is the software - the Blackberry Enterprise Server. The opportunity (2-3 years ago) was for RIM to make the BES open to other hardware - so it could have become the leader when the BYOD movement started. So, they should have jettisoned their hardware then to a Motorola or Nokia. I know that the Surface means that Microsoft now is making hardware, but I can't see them buying RIM. It would take 2-3 years at least for them to move RIM to Windows 8. Google has yet to release any Motorola phones that were engineered by the Google team, though they're rumored to be coming in May. I think an acquisition like that could really wound Microsoft. I think they should just double down on what they're doing with Surface Pro - and focus on providing the hardware and OS for "corporate mobile computing", leaving Apple the consumer, small business and BYOD space. But, time will tell...

HI, Bill. Yes, this can be done. As an example, you can take a look at the Bloomberg BusinessWeek+ app - which enables full-text search across all downloaded issues. If you'd like to discuss further, visit my page at www.ContentMattersllc.com or email me at barry-at-contentmattersllc-dot-com. I'd love to learn more about your initiatives. -Barry

I will keep that in mind next time I have the opportunity ;-)

I also tire of the "can't make it on $250k per annum" stories, but... I think we do need to come up with appropriate terminology for the affluent or well-off that differentiates from the rich. Throughout modern history, the term "rich" typically referred to assets, not income. The rich were landowners, owners of businesses, those with estates to pass on, etc. I think there's a risk in lumping the merely affluent in with the rich. It will be much harder to pass progressive tax policy if we treat them all the same. Living in the NYC metro area or San Francisco or other major cities, $250k/year for a dual-income household is roughly the equivalent of $100-150k in other parts of the country. My property tax (for a nice 3 BR, 2 bath house, but no McMansion) is about the same PER MONTH as my sister pays per year for a house in South Bend, IN. I'm willing to pay that, because living in the NY metro area is important to me. We live fairly modestly, compared to peers. Our mortgage is more than half paid and we have little other debt. Yes, we have iPads and iPods, but our cars are 4-6 years old and we eat out once per week, on average. We live the comfortable, upper middle class lifestyle that two professional incomes can provide. I don't cry poverty nor ask sympathy (I'm living more comfortable than 90% of the country). I've also been outspokenly opposed to extending the Bush tax rates for families making $250k (in fact, I've suggested the higher rate should apply to all my income, not just the portion above $250k). Of course, since dual-income families in high tax-rate communities are already hit by AMT, many of us are paying a higher effective tax rate than you may think. I've love to see families with $250k annual income taxed at the Clinton-era rates, while those with $750k or higher (open to moving that up or down) taxed at a higher rate (perhaps 36-38%). I'd apply that to all forms of income, including dividends and capital gains. And I would stop calling $250k families poor but I wouldn't call them rich either. that would be the quickest way to sound the death knell for progressive tax policies.

No doubt, there is some, select content that may increase in value as other content is commoditized. We still need investigative reporting, analytical market research, etc. But "valuable" goes beyond simply being unique. That unique content has to offer the user a true advantage over what they could get for free. In the b2b world, it's often actionable information that commands a premium. Unfortunately, that remains a very small subset of the premium content out there. As free or inexpensive content continues to improve, the gap between free and premium continues to erode. What I find is that TOO many publishers rely upon the argument that "our content is unique" or worse, "our quality is higher because of our processes" as their value proposition. Yet, when you speak with their customers (or former customers), you hear again and again that the premium publisher did not deliver any value-add over what was available for free. A good example of this comes in the "prospecting data" market where the free or inexpensive entrants such as Jigsaw or Zoom often deliver a higher level of quality (and greater frequency of updates) than those "premium" databases which are updated by humans. So, yes, truly unique content (especially that containing deep analysis) will command a premium. Yet many other publishers will watch their business decline while hiding behind the false belief that their content is truly unique.

Thanks, Neil. The knowledge base uses a mix of technology and people to keep it updated. We leverage technology wherever is practical, but there are critical points that require the judgment of human review. We believe the best solution combines technology, a priori knowledge and editorial oversight.