The husband and wife team that started the wildly popular digital photo site, Flickr, are jumping the Yahoo ship.

This is the latest news in a period of perpetual bad news for Yahoo. First they can't do the deed with Microsoft and now the creators of its most successful and creative acquired properties peaces out.

Stewart Butterfield and Caterina Fake created Flickr in 2004. They then sold their site to Yahoo the next year for a reported $35 million. Butterfield and Fake? Those are probably the worst and most obviously fabricated names I've ever heard. If they're such software geniuses, couldn't they have 'engineered' something a little more discreet?

According to Silicon Alley Insider, 'Fake' and 'Butterfield' should pay more attention to their calendar dates:

Fake reportedly left last Friday; Butterfield will leave July 12,says Arrington. (Who leaves on a Saturday?)

Departures like this aren't surprising -- it's been three years since Flickr was acquired. But Yahoo should be doing everything in its power to keep smart entrepreneurs (assuming they care) on its payroll right now -- not shedding them. More bad news for Jerry Yang and Sue Decker.

Oh. You're quitting on a Saturday, are you, Mr. Butterfield, if that is your real name? A likely story! Is it possible these cool cats are going over to the darkside (MicroFaceSoftBook)?

SiliconAlleyInsider: Flickr Duo Ditching Yahoo Too, June 18, 2008

BusinessInnovatorInsider: Photo

The Big Micro-hoo merger is down for the count again. But like an annoying couple who break up and then get back together every week, we're not deeming it final yet. Google on the other hand, is taking advantage of that piece on the rebound. High five, bro!

Just to recap - the much anticipated Microsoft merger with Yahoo hit a snag last month when Microsoft said peace out to an overreaching/greedy Yahoo CEO. A couple of weeks later, corporate raider and professional dealmeister, Carl Icahn, stepped in to settle it all out. He was ultimately unsuccessful in getting these two asexual pandas to screw to save their species.

Fast forward to today and Google is the one profiting. Google and Yahoo agreed on a deal where the big G would handle some of -hoo's advertising. Google investors got excited and their stock price raised 3.5% this morning. But is this worth it?

The deal won't take full effect for three months, because both companies are waiting to see if the anti-trust monopoly regulators have anything to interject. If it does go through, most analysts predict it will bring Google and additional $200 million in 2009 revenue.

According to a report in the NY Times today about the deal, Yahoo wants to move forward, but still disappoints the Street:

“Clearly it is time to move on,” Jerry Yang, Yahoo’s chief executive, said in a conference call. “This agreement with Google helps us to do so,” Mr. Yang added, saying that the deal would allow Yahoo to continue to compete in its two main lines of business, search and display advertising.

Wall Street was less confident, sending Yahoo’s shares down more than 10 percent, to close at $23.52, after the announcement that there would be no deal with Microsoft — not for the $47.5 billion it initially bid for all of Yahoo, or a smaller deal for any part of it.

Take away from this deal the fact that Google asserted a little muscle as the true king of search. Back in the day Yahoo might have been close on their heels, but they are too much of a mess right now to compete at all. As long as Yahoo can't finalize a merger with someone significant, Google will stay on top.

Forbes: Google Rises On Yahoo Deal, June 13, 2008

NYT: Ad Accord For Yahoo And Google, June 13, 2008

This Microsoft-Yahoo takeover/merger has been the biggest tease on the markets.

Everyday we wake up looking for those headlines saying 'Micro-hoo' or 'Yaho-soft' or something equally asinine. So why hasn't it happened yet?

Everyone knows that Yahoo is sucking big time right now. Leave it to Yahoo to be the world's most used search engine and still be considered a failing company that needs to be bought out. And Microsoft, they're one of the biggest tech bullies on the block (although a little diminished in recent years due to multiple nuggies from Google and MySpace).

Why aren't we reading about some slick hostile takeover procedure all over the frontpages instead of being forced to watch the current proceedings which mimic two uninterested pandas trying to mate in captivity.

CNBC says just give it some time, baby. These two ungainly lovebirds will make it happen over the weekend. With Microsoft offering a higher (but still not as high as 'Yah wanted) takeover big, the heat is intensifying.

Adam Lashinsky of Fortune Magazine explains why the 'Soft-serve hasn't gone hostile yet:

Yahoo is a consumer company, and many of its shares are held by retail investors, perhaps as much as 25%. Retail investors almost never vote in proxy contests... So for the sake of argument, remove that 25% from the vote count. Now that 37% of Yahoo [executive ownership] all of a sudden becomes 49% of the votes outstanding... Team Yahoo wouldn’t have to work all that hard to block a deal anywhere south of, say, $36 a share, while Team Microsoft has a huge task ahead of it to find enough votes to win.

There are a lot of stipulations in that little scenario, but if that's all Microsoft needs to hear to talk themselves out of going hostile, then I guess it makes sense.

Should Yahoo and Microsoft just get this deal over with already? How about just for the sake of not hearing about it anymore? Let us know in the comments section.

CNBC: Microsoft Raises Yahoo Bid As Merger Talks Heat Up, May 2, 2008

CNN Money/Fortune Magazine: Why Microsoft hasn't gone hostile, May 2, 2008

CNN Money: Eyeing Weekend Deal, May 2, 2008