For instance, "must move to Redmond," "must sign a non-compete contract," and "must be developed in Microsoft proprietary languages and for Microsoft proprietary platforms" would all be deal-killers.
My goal here is not to be rich, necessarily, but to create the kind of company I want to work for and make it profitable enough that I don't need to work for any other company. If any buyer, even Microsoft, offered the sort of environment I wanted to work in, plus enough money that I could walk away and not need to work another corporate IT job again if the environment changed, I'd sell.
And some of this is predicated on the experience of a good friend of mine, whose team mostly bootstrapped a very profitable company, then sold it to their largest corporate customer; suddenly they were getting guaranteed salaries, and they got to watch their project earn tens of millions in revenue, but the working environment was politically toxic and the company (now a wholly-owned subsidiary) was the football in constant turf wars, and (in retrospect, especially after seeing the first two years' income from the project) the price they asked was about 1/10 of what it should have been.
I can't alter the turf wars and political toxicity in certain corporations, but I can make sure I ask a price for my company that means I can stand up and walk away with no financial worries if they develop.
Theoretically, it would depend on the terms, the price, and competing offers. If in the unlikely event that Google and Microsoft made competing offers, both requiring substantial vesting terms (2+ years), then Microsoft would have to offer maybe 15-30% more for it to make sense.
Would you rather sell your soul to the devil or to this guy?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6843390913661737077
Seriously, I have a hard time deciding that one ;)
Hahaha.
My take would be, "do you want to work for MS?". The buyout would probably be conditional on the team working with/for Microsoft until they "get up to speed". So put your hand up if you want to work for SoftCo?
Would you refuse to sell on principle? Or because as Paul says, Microsoft is dead?
Or do you just take the money, principles be damned?
Also, Microsoft might be "dead" but they still provide value to their customers, whatever it is. While Vista might be way overhyped and/or overpriced, it can still do useful things. If your product reaches more customers and results in significant benefits for them, why not leverage MS's position? The principle then, is not about money. It's about your product's purpose. Hotmail for example.
Microsoft has done well with some, and dropped the ball on others, but the embedded reach and business focus would be a huge value add to our business.