Was it more than a month ago that Google was rumored to be in “late-stage negotiations to acquire Twitter”?

Not so much late-stage, I guess, with a gestation period that seems interminable (and BoomTown has been there, so can speak from experience about interminable pregnancies).

In fact, I’m still waiting for the Google (GOOG) takeover news floated inaccurately back then to cross our desk at All Things Digital HQ, although it’s more likely Godot will show up first.

So I guess it should come as no surprise that it was time to fob yet another rumor that yet another moneybags of a company–this time, Apple (AAPL)–is in “late-stage negotiations to buy Twitter.”

You could set your broken-but-right-twice-a-day clock by it, in fact.

But despite very serious interest in Twitter by every company that can afford considering such a thing, getting across that late-stage line would require major investors in the microblogging service to be involved, and they are not as yet.

In fact, both Twitter co-founders, Evan Williams and Biz Stone, are in New York today to attend the 2009 “Time 100″ dinner, which fetes this year’s influential people honorees selected by the magazine. Which they are.

So, if they are in serious talks with Apple, they better grab that award and head on home tout de suite.

In point of fact, talks with Facebook last year were actually the only truly deep sale discussions that Twitter has been involved in, and those went south.

Oh, the very notion of Apple and Twitter is a Techmeme dream-ticket, sure to be chewed over for days on end. (I once considered doing a post that just said “AppleTwitterAppleTwitterAppleTwitter…” for 1,000 words to see how much idiotic traffic I would get.)

But given that it is too good to be true for now, rather than be on the edge of your seat about all these endless, alleged late-stage high jinks, here is a five-step list to cut out and keep when the rumors of “late-stage negotiations” with Microsoft (MSFT), News Corp. (NWS), Verizon (VZ), Yahoo (YHOO), Time Warner (TWX) online unit AOL, Comcast (CMCSA), Cisco (CSCO) and more inevitably show up.

1.) Belle of the Geek Ball

Everyone is indeed actually interested in buying Twitter and each has expressed a proper level of interest to the company’s execs–especially to over-contacted CEO Williams–about said interest.

And, because this is America, a bid for Twitter could come at any time and in any amount.

That’s why Apple has indeed said hello. Why Microsoft’s business development team has been busy formulating a valuation. Why Google’s M&A guy, David Lawee, has called into Twitter’s HQ many times with kind expressions of desire. And why News Corp. execs, including Rupert Murdoch himself, have murmured tweet nothings to the Twitter team.

Please note: This is not the same thing as “late-stage negotiations.” Not at all; so don’t believe such things, as you will see this one coming down the pike for miles (see Step #4 below).

If there ever were an Apple deal to be done, it would not be living in some tidy vacuum.

For example, does one imagine Google CEO Eric Schmidt–who is on the Apple board, much to the FTC’s chagrin, it seems–would decline to enter the fray? Oh, he’d be up to his conflicted eyebrows in it at this point.

(Full disclosure: ATD is also considering making a bid for Twitter, but only if I get to name who is called Chief Twit.)

2.) We Feel Pretty, Oh So Pretty

Twitter’s Williams, as well as Stone, do not really want to sell just yet, given the huge traffic over the last year, goosed even further by the whole Oprah-Ashton Kutcher axis of Tweetvil.

Twitter is growing and growing and growing. Does that mean it has peaked or is just crossing over into the mainstream?

I would say the latter and so would its investors and execs.

I have done a lot of reporting and have found that most of them would like a chance to ride this rocket ship and see if they can prevent it from being a shooting star by figuring out some viable, innovative and lucrative business plan.

“Twitter really could make a lot of money,” said one investor. “And we are not just making that up either.”

Well, phew, because I have been a little worried about that.

3.) We’re Living in a Material World, and I Am a Material Girl

That said, as Madonna sings, a pile of cash is a pile of cash and if one of the suitors makes a big move with $600 million or more in cash, it would be hard for Twitter to completely ignore such an offering.

But, in any case, there will be no late-stage negotiations with one player.

Instead, an epic free-for-all wrestling match to the death would break out among all of them, especially Google and Microsoft.

This will be great for me and all the other tech writers as it will be ugly, competitive and tailor-made for breathless reporting.

Google is the likely winner here, although Microsoft is quite intent on the possibilities of integrating Twitter technology with its business offerings.

Someone will, I can predict with certainty, lose an eye.

4.) All the Single Ladies…Cuz if You Liked It, Then You Should Have Put a Ring on It

And, even with that kind of offer–which I would take in a New York minute, as would some Twitter investors–there is a sense when you talk to Twitter’s founders and investors that they truly believe they are onto some very important interactive communications paradigm shift in the Internet arena with their start-up.

I would have to agree given that the real-time and status-update concepts that Twitter has perfectly touched on are a very important one.

Thus, Twitter would prefer to remain independent for now.

Whether Twitter will prevail or not is never assured, but it would be really a shame if it gave up before the story was over.

5.) And They Lived Happily Ever After

Let’s be honest: There is no real downside here for Twitter.

If the service turns out to be be a flash in the pan and it is not sold for big bucks, Twitter still has heralded a very important new era in the digital industry.

And, if it grows like crazy even more, better still.

Also, Stone got to go on “The Colbert Report” and Williams on “Oprah.”

Best of all, in a shameless plug, they will both be captive on stage with Walt Mossberg and me at the seventh D: All Things Digital conference exactly three weeks from today, where we can ask them about all this and more.

So, I am thrilled too.

Who says there are no happy endings?

Until that D7 interview, here is my recent video with Williams and Stone at Twitter’s funky San Francisco HQ:

[UPDATED: With added information about range of product discussions.]

In this digital era’s version of “Spy Vs. Spy,” Microsoft and Google find themselves in yet another sharp-elbowed battle to be the one to strike some kind of commercial search deal or product partnership with Twitter, many sources with knowledge of the situation said, as they also jockey for position to evaluate the potential of the much-hyped microblogging start-up.

After last week’s explosive rumor that Google was in “late-stage” talks to acquire Twitter, which BoomTown reported was wildly premature, I set out to try to sort out exactly what was going on.

As I found out, there was a lot–mostly much talking related to possible product and distribution partnerships, centered around Google or Microsoft, especially around a deal to become the one to exclusively deliver search or other similar services to Twitter properties.

The reason for the interest? Many think Twitter’s real-time search of its 140-character “tweets” posted by users on the service will become the next great battlefield in search. Google currently dominates the general search market, with third-place Microsoft struggling to get more share.

But how to do that is in flux, as past efforts at various third-party search arrangements have had mixed success for both Google and Microsoft. Both companies and also Twitter are trying to figure out new ways to do such deals.

On top of that, it is also unclear if Twitter wants to strike a deal purely to get a payment from either Microsoft or Google, as others have done. Twitter management has indicated that they are much more interested in growth and distribution over a revenue focus.

Twitter Co-founder Biz Stone said as much on the start-up’s Web site recently, as well as in many media interviews, noting that it will begin experimenting with its own business ideas this year.

In other words, the talks Twitter is having with both Google and Microsoft could also lead exactly nowhere too.

Along with the commercial talks, both Microsoft (MSFT) and Google (GOOG) are also trying to figure out if Twitter is simply one of the many shooting stars that are far more typical in Silicon Valley or if it is sea-change start-up worth pursuing and paying up big-time to acquire.

“As impressive as what Twitter has done, we are all overexcited,” said one source. “And so it’s hard to figure out the right thing to do with all the pressure to do something.”

Thus, while an offer for Twitter from Microsoft, Google or a plethora of other players–from News Corp. (NWS) to Yahoo (YHOO) to Cisco (CSCO) to Time Warner (TWX) online unit AOL to big telcos–could come at any time, said many sources, only a huge price would lead to an acquisition, especially since the growth of the service has been accelerating more rapidly in recent months than has been reported publicly.

This all makes for dicey times at Twitter, which sits at the center of all this noise, trying to build a company, while also being fully cognizant that trying to engineer a massive buyout could be its best outcome.

Further complicating the situation: The fact that Twitter co-founder and CEO Evan Williams–who has already sold one company, Blogger, to Google and eventually left after a lackluster experience, a common one of many entrepreneurs who sell out early to large companies–is less interested in selling out than in growing the company.

But without the kind of control of the company’s fate–which allowed Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg to effectively block similar buyout pressures early in its history–Twitter’s founders also might not get the last word in the event of an unusually attractive offer.

While a $500 million stock-and-cash one from Facebook last fall was turned away by Twitter due to worry about the social-networking site’s market valuation, the massing interest is overwhelming and forcing it to make some clear decisions about it path.

“When you are in a situation like Twitter is in, you have to wonder if this is the high-water mark and it is time to sell out or if you are underestimating yourself badly by even considering that,” said one Silicon Valley entrepreneur who has been in a similar spot in the past. “It can be very hard to think straight.”

Indeed, all the attention is both distracting and slightly surreal for its top execs and small 30-person staff in San Francisco, said many sources close to the situation, especially the mass of media that resulted due to that now-discounted rumor that Twitter was poised to be sold off for a giant pile of money.

In fact, Twitter has its hands full enough scaling its recent surge in growth and keeping the service humming along (it has had tech snafus in the past).

But for Google and Microsoft, this geopolitical one-upsmanship by the Internet’s two most important companies is quite familiar, and they have not hesitated to jump into the Twitter tempest.

If that sounds a lot like the two-month fire drill in 2007 that resulted when Microsoft and Google competed to see who could sidle up closest to then-belle-of-the-Silicon-Valley-ball Facebook, you are exactly right.

After much huffing and puffing back and forth and this way and that way, it resulted in a Microsoft “win,” which gave it the distinct honor of forking over $240 million to own 1.6 percent of Facebook at an astonishing $15 billion valuation.

Even as Facebook has grown quickly in size since then–to 200 million users, as announced yesterday–its valuation has dropped to $3 billion to $5 billion.

Microsoft had previously struck an search ad deal in the U.S. with Facebook in which it paid a guaranteed revenue to Facebook and later also did a deal to do some of the search on the site.

Such kinds of deals have become common for both Google and Microsoft in recent years. Google struck one with News Corp. social-networking site MySpace, as well as with AOL (which will also soon come up for renewal).

And Microsoft grabbed the right to pay Digg a guaranteed fee in another online ad deal. And the pair also fought more recently over a mobile search distribution deal with the wireless unit of Verizon (VZ).

And so it goes now with Twitter.

No partnership deal has been made as yet, of course, since such a thing would say a lot about Twitter’s future, since the prospect of marriage overhangs such a choice, which is also–in essence, a declaration of allegiance in the cold war between Google and Microsoft.

If that also sounds like a plot of a James Bond movie, with geeks armed with algorithms instead of gadgety weaponry, you’re also exactly right.

More, obviously, to come…

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

BoomTown has been an unabashed fan of Pure Digital’s Flip digital video cameras since we debuted them at the D: All Things Digital conference in 2005.

And I have used the nifty device on this site since for my shaky-tastic video extravaganzas.

Yes, Pure Digital’s CEO Jonathan Kaplan (pictured above) is to blame!

Now, Kaplan has gone and sold Flip off to Cisco (CSCO) for $590 million in stock.

Sources said that Pure Digital–this corporate name will go by the wayside, by the way–had also chittered-chatted with Sony (SNE) and Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) about such a possibility.

That’s pretty good company for Pure Digital, considering it started as a white-label product, shrink-wrapped for theme parks and drugstores.

But the simplicity of its line of relatively inexpensive cameras, including the recently released Mino (seen below, and also sold in a high-definition version), has made it a huge consumer success, which is no easy task in the devices arena.

With Flip software, a user can plug the unit into a USB port of a computer to upload digital video easily. Flip models cost anywhere from $100 to $299.

Spot-on simplicity and a no-brainer feel have made them into the most popular such devices around, and in a very short time.

But, although it got $68.2 million in funding since its founding in 2001, taking all that innovation and success and truly turning it into a global brand was a much longer and more expensive slog for the San Francisco start-up.

Hence, a sale to the bigs.

Pure Digital is probably a good fit for Cisco, which has been trying to turbocharge its consumer-focused business, especially in home networking, and the move is a clear step in that direction.

In the integration, Cisco has made the Flip team part of ypuCisco’s Consumer Business group, and Kaplan will become general manager of the combined organization.

What comes next for Flip could be interesting, including the addition of social-networking and streaming features, which would dovetail well with Cisco’s other investments in consumer networking.

But most of all, it’s a nice ending to a very sharp company that makes a great product. Introducing a new consumer electronics device into the world is no small task and, clearly, Flip deserves the much bigger stage it is set to get.

Here’s my video interview with Kaplan, about Flip’s history and future:

While the “news” that Google was in “late-stage” talks to acquire Twitter, which TechCrunch reported last night, certainly sounds exciting, it isn’t accurate in any way, according to a number of sources BoomTown spoke to close to the situation.

In fact, Twitter and Google (GOOG) have simply been engaged in “some product-related discussions,” according to one source, around real-time search and the search giant better crawling the microblogging service.

Said a source close to Twitter: “There was a discussion with [Google executive Marissa Mayer's] group about real-time search and about product stuff. It was a couple weeks ago. It was very preliminary…and that was that.”

More importantly, said another source about the idea of an imminent acquisition or serious or even early talks: “Seriously, no negotiations, no deal, nada.”

So for all those Twitterers madly typing 140 characters and caught up in the grand idea of Twoogle, we return you to your regularly scheduled tweeting.

Of course, there has been a lot of analysis, put forth by many, including me, that Google should think about acquiring Twitter.

It is the microblogging service’s likeliest acquirer, in fact. And there is no question Twitter is being watched closely by Google.

But sources at Google stressed that a strong partnership–especially in light of the growing size of the Facebook social-networking site–is what the company is most interested in at this point in time.

That could change at any time, of course. Google or anyone else could plunk down more than $1 billion in cash, and I cannot imagine Twitter’s investors would or could resist. Nor should they.

And what if, for example, Microsoft (MSFT) offered some huge cash payday for Twitter? In that case, I am certain Google would jump into the faceoff, backing up a giant Brinks trunk to the door of Twitter’s San Francisco offices.

And the reaction such an idea has gotten with this round of rumors will surely be studied at Google.

But this is all just pure speculation and should be couched as that. And that does not mean there are talks going on now, as TechCrunch reported so firmly.

And that’s also true for a range of other companies–from Microsoft to Yahoo (YHOO) to News Corp. (NWS) to Time Warner (TWX) unit AOL to Cisco (CSCO) to Comcast (CMCSA) to the big telcos–that would also be interested in buying Twitter or partnering with it.

And Facebook already tried and failed to buy Twitter last year, which BoomTown chronicled in a post in November, for $500 million in cash and stock of the social-networking service.

Why? Because although Twitter is still small, with seven million users, it has a definite momentum in the red-hot real-time online status update space.

And while I give it a hard time for its utter lack of a business plan or revenue to speak of, the well-funded Twitter is also at the beginning of a long runway of possibility that could yield it a higher price later, if it so chose to sell at all.

Moreover, if Twitter’s investors and founders wanted to sell, they wouldn’t have taken a recent round at $230 million valuation, because it would imply a $750 million to $1 billion purchase price, and no one could pay that right now.

Even the mighty Google could not–which does not typically overpay for companies.

More likely, Google would surely get killed by investors for spending that much on a revenue-free company, especially since it is still getting beat up for the pricey YouTube deal it made when times were great.

Lastly, Twitter’s founders have expressed the desire to take the company out for a longer ride, even if some of its investors would love to cash out if offered a crazy price.

“Why would the company do something like this right now?” said a source close to Twitter, in a typical sentiment. “The company’s on a tear right now.”

In fact, last night in an appearance on “The Colbert Report,” Twitter co-founder Biz Stone explicitly said Twitter planned to be a “strong, profitable, independent company.”

While entrepreneurs have said this and then quickly sold out, it is not the case now for Twitter, unless it got some insane offer, said numerous sources.

TechCrunch, which slapped a loud headline on its first post, “Sources: Google in Late-Stage Talks to Buy Twitter,” then changed it to “Sources: Google in Talks to Acquire Twitter (Updated).”

What’s next? “Google and Twitter Have a Lovely Organic Lunch and Discuss Trading T-Shirts (Updated Update)”?

The TechCrunch report, penned by Michael Arrington, also added a let’s-just-cover-all-our-bases update at the bottom of the ever-changing post that then hedged the news it had just hyped.

This is not new for the tech blog, especially related to Google.

On July 28, 2008, TechCrunch reported: “Google In Final Negotiations To Acquire Digg For ‘Around $200 Million,’” and said there was a letter of intent signed.

While the pair did hold ultimately unsuccessful talks, they never got even close to final.

And on February 6, 2008, TechCrunch had a post with the headline, “Rumor: Is Google About to Buy Bebo For $1 Billion To $1.5 Billion? Or Will it Be MySpace?”

Hmm, not so much on the about to buy Bebo. In fact, Google was never in what could be described as serious talks, and Bebo was sold to AOL, the lone bidder, for $850 million a month later.

Thus, the third time is, no surprise, not a charm either.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Pure Digital, the maker of the popular Flip digital video cameras, has sold itself to Cisco (CSCO) for $590 million in stock.

The deal, which had been rumored last week by TechCrunch, was announced this morning by Cisco.

The innovative San Francisco-based start-up has made it big from its modest roots as a white-label digital video camera shrink-wrapped for themes parks and drug stores.

But the simplicity of its line of relatively inexpensive cameras, including the recently released Mino HD, has made it a huge consumer success, which is no easy task in the devices arena.

Using its own software, a user can plug the Flip into a USB port of computer to upload digital video easily. Flip models cost anywhere from $100 to $299.

Cisco has been trying to turbocharge its consumer-focused business, especially in home networking, and the move is a clear step in that direction. It is better known for its business making hardware and software that powers the plumbing of the Web.

Although it used stock in buying Pure Digital, Cisco has a $29 billion pile of cash. Recently, I wrote a piece about how a lot of tech companies, with big hordes of money, will soon be buying up a lot of the most promising tech start-ups.

The first commercially-branded Flips were, in fact, introduced at the third D: All Things Digital conference in 2005 by CEO Jonathan Kaplan (pictured here at D3.)

In an email to BoomTown this morning, Kaplan was happy with the outcome, because no matter its success, taking Flip to the next level is not easy:

“We’re thrilled by the partnership. Cisco shares my vision for capturing and sharing simple, accessible, and high-quality video to the mass-market consumer. Now we can deliver that ideal on a global basis.”

Cisco said that “upon the close of the acquisition, the Pure Digital team will become part of Cisco’s Consumer Business Group, which includes Linksys® by Cisco® home networking, audio and media-storage products. Kaplan will become general manager of the combined organization,” reporting to Ned Hooper, SVP of Corporate Development and Consumer Groups.

He and his team will also get a $15 million in retention-based equity incentives.

The sale to Cisco is a big win financially overall. Pure Digital got another $40 million in additional funding in mid-2007, from investors Morgan Stanley Principal Investment, Heights Capital Management and AllianceBernstein, who joined initial investors Sequoia Capital and Benchmark Capital.

It had previously gotten $28 million in 2004 from Sequoia and Benchmark, as well as Crescendo Ventures, Steamboat Ventures and Focus Ventures. It was founded with $200,000 in seed funding in 2001.

And, more to the point, Flip cameras have been used by me for nefarious interviewing of scared Web execs since our site’s launch. In fact, I have been so bizarrely enamored with the Flip that I even did a video of my many old Flips meeting the new high-definition Mino last November.

Here is that Felliniesque effort:

And here’s the full press release from Cisco about the deal:

Cisco Announces Intent to Acquire Pure Digital Technologies, Makers of Flip VideoTM Networking Leader Adds Popular Flip Video Solutions to Consumer Portfolio Photos

SAN JOSE, Calif.–March. 19, 2009–Cisco today announced its intent to acquire privately held Pure Digital Technologies Inc. San Francisco-based Pure Digital, creator of the best-selling Flip VideoTM brand, is a pioneer in developing consumer-friendly video solutions with mass-market appeal.

“The acquisition of Pure Digital is key to Cisco’s strategy to expand our momentum in the media-enabled home and to capture the consumer market transition to visual networking,” said Ned Hooper, senior vice president of Cisco’s Corporate Development and Consumer Groups. “Pure Digital has revolutionized the way people capture and share video with Flip Video. This acquisition will take Cisco’s consumer business to the next level as the company develops new video capabilities and drives the next generation of entertainment and communication experiences.”

Pure Digital’s Flip Video has sold more than 2 million units and quickly demonstrated market appeal in the United States by making video simple, accessible and fun. All Flip Video products come equipped with FlipShare, a best-in-class software that allows users to easily organize and edit videos and then share them instantly on YouTube, MySpace and other popular sharing Web sites.

“Flip Video puts the power to instantly capture, edit and share video into the hands of everyday consumers,” said Jonathan Kaplan, chairman and CEO of Pure Digital. “By combining forces with Cisco, we join a company that shares our passion for video and whose global scale and tremendous technology expertise we expect will enable us to quickly expand and enrich the Flip Video experience.”

Upon the close of the acquisition, the Pure Digital team will become part of Cisco’s Consumer Business Group, which includes Linksys® by Cisco® home networking, audio and media-storage products. Kaplan will become general manager of the combined organization, reporting to Hooper.

The Pure Digital acquisition exemplifies Cisco’s “build, buy and partner” innovation strategy to move quickly into new markets and capture key market transitions. Under the terms of the agreement, Cisco will pay approximately $590 million in stock in exchange for all shares of Pure Digital. In addition, Cisco will provide up to $15 million in retention-based equity incentives for continuing employees. The acquisition is subject to various standard closing conditions and is expected to close in the fourth quarter of Cisco’s fiscal year 2009. The acquisition will be accounted for in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

On the eve of the debut of the much anticipated “Watchmen” movie from Warner Bros., Cisco seems to be getting into the superhero game, with an unusual marketing effort that uses sophisticated comic book characters to highlight its line of security products.

More like Nerdmen! Except with more muscles and cooler outfits!

On a new Web site that is now up, for a series called “The Realm,” Cisco (CSCO) seems to have gotten some cool original work from well-known Marvel Comics illustrator Mike Mayhew.

The characters are all apparently linked to real-life Cisco engineers, as well as its products, but it is being pushed as entertainment.

The first “episode,” titled “Déjà Vu,” is now up, with more to come, the site promises, as freaky music plays in the background. It is done as a video version of a comic book.

The plot so far: “Botnet attacks in The Realm are on the rise, and Jux discovered they are after Synocorp employees. Trace, the defender brought to life in The Realm through solutions built by Engineer Roberts, fended off the bots in time to save the identity of the latest target. Can the defenders stop the threats from infiltrating Synocorp offices? Find out in episode 2.”

Not quite “The Dark Knight,” but not bad so far.