Nokia-Siemens officials held a pie-eating contest for workers in the company cafeteria. Saurab Sabharwal started choking and ran to the bathroom. No one thought to follow him. A coworker found him dead an hour later. His father is now asking why medical personnel weren't on hand; doctors in India question whether such contests should be held at all. The point of such contests is to spur competition between employees, in a culture which fosters cooperation. That one proved deadly is perhaps the best lesson about American culture, if not the one the bosses intended.

(Image via Machias Wild Blueberry Festival)

One company which listened, to its detriment, to shareholders was Microsoft. When Bill Gates ran the software company, he liked to keep a year's worth of expenses on hand, in case things went awry. Microsoft is no longer quite so stingy with its cash; it dribbles some out in dividends, and gave shareholders a $32 billion payout a few years back. Good thing it didn't shell out $44 billion for Yahoo; that deal would have left it cash-poor and debt-ridden, at exactly the wrong time. Even so, Microsoft's balance sheet is no longer the most sterling in tech.

So who's got cash on hand? Here are the 10 richest tech companies, from a Yahoo Finance screening. (I left out companies, like IBM, whose cash was matched by equally outsized debts.)

1. China Mobile, $31.0 billion
   China's oil, steel, and finance giants are investing overseas. Why not its leading wireless company? Yes, China censors its citizens. That was a trendy thing to worry about in August 2008.
2. Cisco Systems, $26.2 billion
   Cisco's so proud of its cash pile, its investor-relations chief has blogged about it. If only investors had any confidence in Cisco's bizarre social-network acquisition strategy, which has nothing to do with its fine telecom-equipment assets. Memo to Cisco's M&A team: Just because it has the word "network" in it doesn't mean you have to buy it.
3. Microsoft, $21.2 billion
   The $44 billion Yahoo offer was half in cash, half in stock, which would have strained Microsoft's finances and required it to take on some debt. Good thing it fell through.
4. Apple, $20.7 billion
   In the '90s, Apple almost ran out of money. No danger of that happening soon. Ever-secretive Apple rarely makes big, splashy acquisitions; that could change if the right bargain comes along.
5. Google, $12.7 billion
   A slumping share price may mean more acquisitions done for cash.
6. Intel, $12.0 billion
   Intel's chip factories require billions of dollars in investment; count on Intel to spend its money there, rather than on cute Web companies.
7. Nokia, $10.8 billion
   Like Cisco, Nokia's eager to be more of a Web player. Blogging and lifecasting are particular areas of interest. The cell-phone maker could throw investors a curveball and buy, say, Six Apart, Automattic, or Tumblr.
8. Dell, $9.0 billion
   Dell could have more cash on its hands if it manages to sell its PC factories, a move it's considering as HP chips away at its business. On the shopping list: software and services.
9. Motorola, $7.2 billion
   It's hard to see Motorola being an active acquirer until it figures out what to do with its cell-phone business.
10. Taiwan Semiconductor, $7.0 billion
    AMD's only worth $2.6 billion, and TSMC already makes some chips for it. Why not just buy it?

You have to consider the fact that Google has to pay to license all of their street data from NAVTEQ and TeleAtlas. By essentially photographing the view from the street, Google has access to nearly everything they need to re-create the data set. Street names, mileposts, exit numbers, etc can all be pulled from the images. Combine this with their recently announced Map Maker and Google has their own data set with accuracy as good or better than their current sources, and they don't have to pay ridiculous licensing fees. This doesn't even account for the fact that Google is striking deals with local government to publish geo data as well, or that Google is using Street View cars to collect 3D data on buildings.)

• Alan Levy (BlogTalkRadio)
• Alec Oxenford (OLX, DineroMail)
• Alejandro Estrada (DineroMail)
• Alexis Bonte (Erepublik.com)
• Andrew McLaughlin (Google)
• Anil de Mello (Mobuzz)
• Arturo J. Paniagua (Hipertextual)
• Auren Hoffman (Rapleaf)
• Axel Schmiegelow (Sevenload, Denkwerk Group)
• Benjamí Villoslada (Menèame)
• Brent Hoberman (Mydeco)
• Carlos Martìn (IG Expansiòn)
• Cedric Maloux
• Christophe F. Maire (Nokia gate5, investor)
• Claudia Gisiger-Gonzalez (UNHCR)
• Dan Dubno (Blowing Things Up)
• David Sifry (Technorati)
• Demian M. Bellumio (Cyloop)
• Eduardo Arcos (Hipertextual)
• Efe Cakarel (The Auteurs)
• Ehssan Dariani (studiVZ)
• Esteban Sosnik
• Esther Dyson (EDventure)
• Felix Petersen (Plazes)
• Hans Peter Brøndmo (Plum)
• Ibrahim Evsan (Sevenload)
• Ivan Communod (Vpod.tv)
• Jacob Hsu (Symbio)
• James Gutierrez (Progress Financial)
• Jennifer L. Schenker (BusinessWeek)
• John Markoff (The New York Times)
• Joichi Ito (Creative Commons, Six Apart Japan, investor)
• Jon Berrojalbiz (Trading Motion)
• Jonas Birgersson (Labs2)
• Jörg Rohleder (Vanity Fair)
• José María Figueres (Grupo Felipe IV)
• Jose Marin (IG Expansion)
• Julio Alonso (Weblogs SL)
• Lars Hinrichs (XING)
• Loïc Le Meur (Seesmic)
• Louise T Blouin MacBain (Louise Blouin Media)
• Lukasz Gadowski (Spreadshirt.com, investor)
• Lukasz Wejchert (Onet.pl)
• Marc Samwer (European Founders Fund)
• Marcelo Claure (Brightstar Corp.)
• Marko Ahtisaari (Blyk, Dopplr, FON)
• Mathias Entenmann (Betfair)
• Matt Biddulph (Dopplr)
• Megan Smith (Google)
• Michael Arrington (Techcrunch)
• Michael Jackson (Mangrove Capital Partners)
• Michael Wolf (Farallon Point)
• Nikesh Arora (Google)
• Ola Ahlvarsson (Result, FON)
• Om Malik (Giga Omni Media)
• R.J. Friedlander (Grupo Planeta)
• Ricardo Galli (Menéame)
• Rodrigo Sepúlveda Schulz (Vpod.tv)
• Rupert Schäfer (DLD, Hubert Burda Media)
• Scott Rafer (Lookery, Mashery, Winksite)
• Tariq Krim (Netvibes)
• Thomas Crampton (Next Media)

No, this is about the twisted dynamics of the music industry. Selling unprotected MP3s is all the rage now, even though label executives have insisted for years on copy-protected formats, like the kind Apple sells through iTunes. Forget Jobs's propaganda about Apple wanting to "free" music from copy protection. He doesn't care one bit about the digital-rights management software, or DRM, that record labels insist on. And he knows that most consumers don't care about the issue. He just wants to sell iPods, and his customers just want to buy them.

What Jobs does care about is other music stores having something Apple doesn't. The labels have been favoring competitors like Amazon.com with licenses for MP3 files — because they now fear Apple more than they fear piracy. And Jobs knows that DRM doesn't work to stop piracy, anyway. But what it does do is lock music to devices, because hardware manufacturers can't risk breaking the DMCA's circumvention provisions.

So Apple needs a new hook to win the labels back. Selling subscription music would allow Apple to lock down its music once more. According to reports of the proposals Apple and the labels are considering, iPod buyers would pay anywhere from $20 to $100 to get all the music they can download. Ah, but they'd have to download it from iTunes, onto an iPod.

Bundling music would give Apple a huge edge over the competition. Nokia's also proposing an all-you-can-hear music plan. But for all of Nokia's talk about cell phones replacing MP3 players, only 7 percent of cell-phone owners listen to music on their handsets. Amazon.com could try a subscription plan, but it's hard to see how it would make money, since it doesn't have the iPod's hefty profit margins.

Jobs comes out on top, again. Apple sells more iPods by giving the record labels what they want — copy protection and revenue — without having to share the iPod's profits. The compliant tech press corps will hail his plan as genius, forgetting he ever said anything about consumers wanting to own their music. The losers here are the musicians. Apple and the labels will divvy up subscription revenues, and the artists' cut will likely be smaller than what they'd make off of by-the-song sales. But since when has anyone asked their opinion about how to run the music business?

(Photo by AP/Paul Sakuma)

The New York Times writes that although Nokia has had significant success worldwide — almost 40 percent global market share in cell phones — the company has had a tough time adapting to the U.S. market's "idiosyncrasies."

"We felt we could teach the U.S. market how we do business elsewhere ... and ... that failed," says Nokia's Kalla... — screw it, we'll just call him OPK. "Now we just want to act, based on the needs and requirements of the market." If the Finns can roll out a viable services plan — Nokia's $8.1 billion acquisition of mapping provider Navteq may help here — they could redirect revenue from cell providers back to themselves.

The move would have a cost. Why would AT&T or Sprint want to do business with Nokia when Nokia is trying, in effect, to steal their customers? They wouldn't, and Nokia may screw itself over if it presses the issue. OPK was insightful when he said, "Convergence is a nice, dandy word, but it means industries colliding." Good for Nokia shareholders that he is aware of that, but can he act on it? Don't hold your breath. No wonder Nokia wants to encourage "openness" — that's just a fancy label for its free-for-all profit-grabbing services strategy. Good luck screwing over your partners in an industry that requires partnerships to function.

Though this could be attributed to the ease of use of the iPhone's browser, it is still significant. A product on the market less than 6 months is used to browse the Web 50 percent more than Windows Mobile which has been around for years. Look for holiday iPhone sales numbers to be announced at Macworld San Francisco in January — and then we'll find out just how well the iPhone really sold. Until then, browser numbers serve as a good proxy for telling us how much it's used. (Photo by AP/Paul Sakuma)