What’s in a name?

Well, a lot, actually, and BoomTown supposes it would be just like those Pacific Northwest types at Microsoft to name the new version of its search service “Bing,” presumably after the cherry that is a big product in the company’s home state.

That moniker is one of many being bandied about in a group the software giant could be considering for the big relaunch of its search service, which the company has been prepping.

Microsoft’s search service is currently called–zzzzz–Live Search.

“All About Microsoft” crack blogger Mary-Jo Foley of ZDNet recently wrote about the Bing name, which is registered to the company, as well as “Hook” and the one that Microsoft is using now as its test name, Kumo.

Kumo means “cloud” and “spider” in Japanese, which seems a wee bit esoteric.

Today, paidContent.org dropped “Sift” into the mix, although it seems to be related to mobile phones, along with “Swivel.”

I, for one, am feeling both like flour and getting dizzy at the thought of those names.

Foley at ZDnet feels the same, noting today in a post:

“(Would Microsoft be crazy enough to trademark its general Web search engine and its search engine for mobile with two different names, say Bing and Sift? As Windows Live has shown, truth can be stranger than fiction….)”

Microsoft (MSFT), of course, is keeping the name for its search service under tight wraps, but it is obviously going to be spending a shipload of money on its branding in another attempt to catch market leaders Google (GOOG) and Yahoo (YHOO).

Microsoft has been recently talking to Yahoo about a search partnership deal, although they are likely both to keep their brands and search products in any event.

Nonetheless, execs and minions in the know laugh at me loudly when I ask them to leak it to me.

(Note to anyone at Microsoft: Pretty please, someone leak it to me, even if it’s in the form of a memo from the leaky cauldron that is Yahoo.)

I doubt someone will, though. “It’s like Fort Knox secret,” said one Softie source, referring to the Kentucky fortress where the largest amount of the United States gold reserves are stored.

Hey, if Auric Goldfinger, OddJob and Pussy Galore could get into Fort Knox in that most excellent James Bond film, I can certainly find out the name of Microsoft’s search service!

Personally, I like Bing, and cherries from Washington state are indeed tasty (and coming soon too!)

According to the Heart of Washington Web site, its state’s cherries rate. Some fun factoids:

- Washington State produces more than 50 percent of all the sweet cherries in the United States.
- The Rainier cherry, which is yellow with a red blush, was made from a cross between two dark red cherries, the Van and Bing.
- Americans eat approximately 2.6 pounds of cherries per year.
- There are approximately 53 pitted cherries in one pound of cherries.
- The Bing cherry, which all cherries are measured against, was first developed in 1874 in Milwaukie, Ore.
- The Bing cherry was named after one of Seth Lewelling’s workers. The Bing cherry was developed by Seth Lewelling.
- Washington cherries are shipped around the world; the top three foreign markets are Canada, Taiwan and Japan.
- In 2001, there were 29,000 acres of sweet cherries in the state.
- The Washington cherry season begins in late May with some product seen at farmer’s markets. Commercial shipping begins around June 5, and will continue until mid-August. The peak of the season runs from June 20 to Aug. 1.

Plus, if Microsoft uses Bing, they could also rebrand their MSN online service, “Bada” and their email product, “Boom.”

Then, they can get Tony Soprano as their spokesman with the motto: “Bada Bing, Bada Boom, Notta Bada Algorithm!”

Or better still: “If you use Google, we’ll whack you!”

Now, that’s more like it.

[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.

When sources at Microsoft last week told BoomTown that it was going to use Carl Icahn as a kind of messenger for a new ad search proposal, I thought: Uh-oh.

And tonight, like clockwork, Yahoo (YHOO) rejected Microsoft’s (MSFT) latest bid to buy its search and advertising search business, which was delivered in conjunction with the billionaire activist investor, who is waging a proxy fight against the company.

Why? Well, it’s kind of like sending Pepé Le Pew to a garden party.

Sources tell me the bid included a $20 billion ad search revenue guarantee over 10 years, as well as other small improvements on Microsoft’s previous proposal.

Still, Yahoo turned up its nose at it.

“This odd and opportunistic alliance of Microsoft and Carl Icahn has anything but the interests of Yahoo!’s stockholders in mind,” said Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock in a statement.

He added later: “After negotiating among themselves without the involvement of Yahoo!, Carl Icahn and Microsoft presented us with a ‘take it or leave it’ proposal under which we would be required to restructure the Company, hand over to Microsoft Yahoo!’s valuable search business and to Carl Icahn the rest of the Company, giving us less than 24 hours to respond.”

Actually, this new bid–made Friday with that 24-hour expiration date, which makes Microsoft and Icahn sound like the evil villains in James Bond movies–was similar to its last one, but definitely sweeter.

But, as it was described in the Yahoo statement, the bid also added Icahn into the mix by giving him control over the rest of Yahoo–which includes its powerful suite of communications and content assets–via a new board.

Presumably, Icahn would then turn around and merge into either News Corp.’s (NWS) MySpace or Time Warner’s (TWX) AOL. (News Corp is the owner of Dow Jones and of this Web site.)

Thus, Yahoo agreed to disagree, noting it was willing to sell the company for the $33 once offered by Microsoft in its now-dead takeover bid (which, of course, they must say).

“It is ludicrous to think that our Board could accept such a proposal,” Bostock said in the statement. “While this type of erratic and unpredictable behavior is consistent with what we have come to expect from Microsoft, we will not be bludgeoned into a transaction that is not in the best interests of our stockholders.”

This strong sentiment should not come as a surprise for anyone who has talked to Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang lately.

In a conversation I had with him, I came away with one single impression about how he felt about Icahn.

And that would be complete and utter disdain. Plus one.

“I think handing over the company to Carl Icahn for the express purpose of hoping he can negotiate a complex deal with Microsoft is a big mistake for shareholders,” Yang said to me.

The Yahoo statement tonight went further.

“The major component of the overall value per share asserted by Microsoft/Icahn would be in Yahoo!’s remaining nonsearch businesses, which would be overseen by Mr. Icahn’s slate of directors, which has virtually no working knowledge of Yahoo!’s businesses,” it said.

Translation: Icahn is a Luddite.

And, even more, Yang is perhaps even more offended that Microsoft has hooked up with Icahn in its efforts to oust him and Yahoo’s board, considering the move to be a very dirty trick.

“[Microsoft's] motivations are suspect and there is simply no good reason to think they will actually show up at the end of the day,” said Yang in our conversation.

Another source close to Yahoo was even more clear: “This is a company with some dignity,” the source said. “And we would rather go down fighting than turn the keys over to people who will ruin it.”

For its part, Microsoft is just as completely exasperated with Yang and Yahoo’s board and feels it can move against it without its cooperation.

“It’s just impossible to deal with the Yahoo board or Yang,” said one source at Microsoft. “They have no intention of negotiating, so we’re just going to do what we have to do.”

While some might call it all corporate theater, these are very real feelings on all sides.

The August 1 board meeting is suddenly looking very, very ugly, as Yahoo, Microsoft and Icahn become more entrenched than ever.

And with only 20 days to go until it takes place near Yahoo’s HQ in Sunnyvale, Ca. and bad feelings all around, there’s not a lot time to work things out to everyone’s satisfaction, even though they all should.

Thus, it might actually fall to shareholders, who are irked at Yang and the Yahoo board, but who also don’t really trust Icahn and would have to hold their noses to vote for him.

Here’s an easier way to understand this situation now: It stinks.

But no! And, unless Microsoft (MSFT) mercifully steps in and forks over $34 a share to rebid for all of Yahoo, it’s likely this playground-level of fighting will go on until Aug. 1.

Why? Because that’s when Yahoo will hold its annual meeting, which is where Icahn’s proxy fight against the company will presumably come to a head.

Thus, it’ll be a long, hot, tit-for-tat summer and I expect my 3-year-old son–who can break out into “Kung Fu Panda” hiii-yah dementia at any moment–will be behaving better than this pair in the three months ahead.

I can’t believe that BoomTown is saying this–given that we hoped and prayed for the day when Yahoo would finally emerge from its year-long cone of silence and start talking.

As it turns out, those were the days, my friend.

Because the back-and-forth between Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock and Icahn has all the annoyance of two cats howling at each other in the alley in the middle of the night and none of the suspense.

Let’s be clear: This is mostly Icahn’s poison-pen war, trying to whip up a big dish of shareholder ire, in order to increase his threat and, of course, the possibility of a big payday for himself.

Does BoomTown imagine Icahn cares one little bit about the employees of Yahoo or the best course of action for the company?

Not even one teeny-weeny little bit. And yet, he must drone on.

Like yesterday, when Icahn fired off another of his increasingly fanciful missives on the same basic theme: Yahoo is run by idiots.

Previously, he had focused on Yahoo’s botching of the Microsoft takeover fight, the evils of the generous severance plan Yahoo put in place and then on his intention to oust Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang.

Now, Icahn is moving onto a golden oldie with an accusation that Yahoo let Google (GOOG) clean its clock over the last few years.

What? You’re kidding! Actually, even the not-so-swift Jo from “The Facts of Life” would have caught onto that fact of tech life long, long ago.

Nonetheless, Icahn blusters: “I ask again what your great ‘plan’ has been over the last few years. … Why did you permit Google to leave you in the dust?”

Previously, he had meandered into spy-versus-spy territory with this gem: “Until now, I naively believed that self-destructive doomsday machines were fictional devices found only in James Bond movies. I never believed that anyone would actually create and activate one in real life. I guess I never knew about Yang and the Yahoo Board.”

Cue the 10-second countdown of the nuclear missile aimed at New York, as Yang strokes his white Persian cat malevolently!

Which is why it is perplexing that Yahoo chooses to so quickly engage with Icahn by answering such dopiness.

But Bostock did with the seriousness of a righteous preacher, when he stated primly last week: “Conspicuously absent from your letter is any credible plan for Yahoo other than a repetition of your insistence that the company should sell itself to Microsoft. Indeed, your stated view that ‘the only way to salvage Yahoo in the long if not short run is to merge with Microsoft’ demonstrates that you have no other plan and causes one to wonder what exactly would happen to our company if you and your nominees were to take control of Yahoo.”

Well, it is a good point, but hardly one that makes me cheer for the Yahoo side to win.

And then again yesterday, in a letter to shareholders about the upcoming annual meeting, Yahoo gave this limp defense for not backing Icahn, without including new ideas of why its incumbent board deserved a second chance:

“Given Microsoft’s stated position of not wanting to acquire Yahoo, the election of Mr. Icahn’s slate could result in substantial erosion of stockholder value.”

Apparently, there is one thing the pair do seem to agree on, and so do I: A substantial erosion of shareholder value seems inevitable as this caterwauling continues.

In yet another letter to Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock, the ever-grumpier billionaire investor, who is waging a proxy fight against Yahoo (YHOO) and seeking to oust Yang and crew, stepped up the volume to Crazy Eddie levels today.

It’s almost too juicy to require translation, as the veins practically pop out in Icahn’s letter from all the agita he seems to be experiencing over this botched takeover.

Icahn writes: Dear Mr. Bostock:

I have constantly complained about how far CEOs and boards will go in order to retain their jobs, yet even I am amazed at the length Jerry Yang and the Yahoo board have gone to in order to entrench their positions and keep shareholders from deciding if they wished to sell to Microsoft.

Translation: And I thought Dick Parsons of Time Warner (TWX) was a potted plant! But you guys make him look like the Road Runner, which is a very nice Warner Bros. brand, I might add.

Icahn wrote: According to details in a complaint that I became aware of yesterday (details Yahoo fought to keep under seal), Jerry Yang and a majority of the board went to inordinate lengths to sabotage a Microsoft bid.

The damage to Microsoft “is compounded by the fact that Yahoo’s thousands of engineers, known as ‘Technical Yahoos!,’ have detailed job responsibilities and qualifications.”

Translation: I am playing brain dead here, even though everyone and their grandmother knew exactly what Yang was doing at the time with that massive and costly severance plan.

But, with a little verbal foot-stamping and some grumbly sounds, I think it approximates an appropriately hysterical level of outrage and surprise.

Icahn wrote: Most importantly, Microsoft might never be able to trust a CEO and board who, while claiming to be negotiating in good faith, went behind their back and adopted a “plan,” which not only sabotages any Microsoft acquisition but went so far as to completely disable its own ability to rescind the “plan” as long as Microsoft’s offer remains pending.

In my opinion, it will be extremely difficult for Microsoft or other companies to trust, work with and negotiate with a company that would go to these lengths.

Translation: Outrage! Foot-stamping! Grumbling! Acting like the once-thuggish Microsoft (MSFT) doesn’t actually admire this tactic by Yahoo in its secret heart of hearts.

And now, the piece de resistance, I compare Yang to Ernst Stavro Blofeld, as translated by Mike Myers’ Dr. Evil (One millllllliiiiioooooon dollars!).

What next from you evil-doers? A shark with a nuclear bomb attached in my lap pool? Painting me all gold and purple? Perhaps suspending me and a lovely disposable Bond girl high above a tank of piranhas?

But I am 0000000007, a billionaire’s secret agent number, so bring it on!

Icahn wrote: It is insulting to shareholders that Yahoo for the last month has told us that they are quite willing to negotiate a sale of the company to Microsoft and cannot understand why Microsoft has walked away.

Could this have been the problem?

Translation: I like the silly focus on “the plan,” don’t you? It sounds so sneaky and naughty.

Even though, truth be told, Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer has publicly pointed to the ad outsourcing deal with its archrival Google (GOOG) that Yahoo is considering, as well as the price it is willing to pay, as the software giant’s main deal blockers.

Icahn writes: Even more deceitful are Yahoo’s actions toward its own employees, for whom you claimed to have set up the “plan.”

Management neglected to mention to these same employees that Microsoft in its proposals had earmarked $1.5 billion of retention incentives (representing over $100,000 per employee) meant to allay any employee concerns.

Translation: Again, “The Plan” sounds spooky, doesn’t it? M. Night Shyamalan is set to make a movie of it, just like “The Sixth Sense.” The tag line: “I see overcompensated geeks!”

Icahn wrote: Ironically, according to the complaint, this is not the first time that Yahoo has denied shareholders the opportunity of selling to Microsoft at a large premium.

An article in CNET News cited in the complaint sums it up by stating, “Yahoo may indeed agree to Microsoft’s [offer], but it will be over Jerry Yang’s dead body.”

Translation: Dead bodies! I smell a hit movie! Hello, Oscar!

I wonder if Michael Douglas should play me again?

Greed, by the way: Still good!

Wait, I am being distracted from the issue at hand, which is: Was the board and former CEO Terry Semel high not to accept that $40 a share last year?

Smoking, I might add, is very bad for your health.

Icahn wrote: I and many of your shareholders believe that the only way to salvage Yahoo in the long, if not short run, is to merge with Microsoft. However, because of HSR considerations, to complete a merger of this magnitude will take a period of time.

Therefore, the best chance to bring Microsoft and Yahoo together is to replace Yang and the current Yahoo board with a board that will negotiate in good faith with Microsoft and in whom Microsoft will have trust to operate the company during the long period between signing and closing.

Translation: Please step down now! No? Pretty please? (It was worth the try.)

Of course, Microsoft trusts me less than you to run the place, but let’s leave that pertinent point aside here, shall we?

Icahn wrote: You stated in a press release yesterday that, “Yahoo’s board of directors, including Jerry Yang, has been crystal clear that it would consider any proposal by Microsoft that was in the best interests of its shareholders.”

I understand how these actions are in the best interests of management and a board whose members each receive $40,000 per month for several days work, but it is hard for me to understand how these actions are in the “best interests of the shareholders.”

Translation: To make my point, let me channel Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men” here, with me playing Jack and Yang Tom Cruise:

Icahn: Ever served in a forward area?

Yang: No sir.

Icahn: Ever put your life in another man’s hands, ask him to put his life in yours?

Yang: No sir.

Icahn: We follow orders, son. We follow orders or people die. It’s that simple. Are we clear?

Yang: Yes sir.

Icahn: Are we clear?

Yang: Crystal.

Icahn wrote: However, despite your actions to date, there is still some possibility that you can resuscitate a Microsoft offer for the company.

I can only hope that you will finally do what is in the “best interests of the shareholders.”

Translation: My “plan” is to say “the plan” as much as possible, until I drive everyone nuts and take their eye off the ball, which is getting more money for me in this digital briar patch, as the only “shareholder” that I actually care about.

I threw in the “one doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist” dig, because I am not one in any way whatsoever and still have my secretary print out my emails.

By the way, what is this Facebook thingamajig people keep talking about as another Microsoft target? Do you have to be a rocket scientist to join it?

Icahn wrote: Sincerely yours,

CARL C. ICAHN

Translation: Still as insincere as ever!

In others words, quantum levels of classiness above where we exist (although we’d kill for a Starbucks every 50 yards).

Some observations about Monaco’s main town of Monte-Carlo:

It is really scenic, with lovely parks, flower-draped buildings, charming windy streets and stunning views of the water.

Also there’s enough gilt here to choke a horse, and if you want to buy a $100,000 watch, you’re all set. Also a Bentley!

After a while though, the sheer Disney theme-park perfection of the place made me want to litter and spit.

Then, after another while, I half expected to see Julie Andrews and Anne Hathaway show up in a real-life version of the “The Princess Diaries.”

Then, a fine cup of espresso made me a little less grumpy.

Also, lots and lots and lots of surveillance cameras everywhere, as in other European cities. Thus, I decided not to litter or spit.

It goes without saying: I have no class.

Still, here is my video tour of Monaco, which is 100% Internet-free: