Lots of credits goes to founders Christopher Golda and Mike Montano, who have made BackType one of the leading services to track and analyze social media activity.

Without raining on the BackType parade, a question that begs to be asked is whether BackType should have been funded in Canada as opposed to the U.S.

To provide some background, Golda and Montano were electrical engineering graduates from the University of Toronto, who showed their entrepreneurial chops by starting a service called iPartee. While the business didn’t succeed, Golda and Montano proceeded to start BackType in 2008 as a way to search for blog comments.

To jump-start the business, they applied and were accepted into Paul Graham’s YCombinator startup program in Silicon Valley, which coughed up $15,000 for a 6% in BackType. This let Golda and Montano create a prototype they could pitch to investors. Over the next three years, BackType raised $1.3-million and expanded into Twitter search.

In hindsight, BackType is a big fish that got away from Canadian investors. I would hazard to guess that in 2008 getting seed capital from Canadian investors was a remote possibility for Golda and Montano, which is likely one of the reasons they applied for the YCombinator program.

The question is whether BackType would get funded today in Canada. It appears the seed and startup investment landscape has changed with the emergence of new funds such as Real Ventures. Meanwhile, there has been a growing number of startup acquisitions, which should bolster the confidence of investors and entrepreneurs.

Do Canadian investors now have the ability and willingness to finance smart entrepreneurs with ideas? Or do Canadian investors still need to see traction such as a finished product, customers or revenue?

For more on the BackType story, check out this TechVibes story.

1. Microsoft, whatever you do, don’t screw up Skype. Big companies have a reputation for turning chicken into chicken salad so please don’t try to Redmond-ize Skype, which is a different beast.

2. I wonder how much Canadian taxpayers made from deal given Canada Pension Plan Investment Board was one of the investors when Silver Lake led a group that purchased 70% of Skype in 2009. At the time, Skype was valued at $2.75-billion.

3. How does eBay feel after finally cutting ties with Skype? It’s been six years since eBay made its curious decision to acquire Skype for $2.6-billion. At the time, it was a strange, out-of-left field move. At the end of the day, eBay made $4.3-billion – a nice return on investment but it was strategically and tactically distracting.

4. How quickly and deeply will Microsoft integrate Skype into Windows and its other products? I would suggest that after a short honeymoon, Microsoft Telecom (powered by Skype) will appear on the scene.

5. Does this open the door for a competitor? Now that Skype is owned by Microsoft, it’s no longer cool or rebellious, which was a big part of Skype’s appeal. Will Facebook and Google buy or build something to compete against Skype?

Two years after filing for bankruptcy protection, Nortel is still on life support but refuses to go away quietly even as it divests its last assets – a patent portfolio chock-a-block with all kinds of wireless goodies.

Yesterday, Nortel unveiled plans to sell 6,000 patents to Google for $900-million. The deal, however, is structured so competitive bids can surface. Among the parties rumoured to be interested are Research in Motion, which covets Nortel’s LTE assets.

If it was as simple as an auction happening, that would be one thing. But in the whacky world of Nortel, nothing is that simple. According to GeekWire, Microsoft says it has a “worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free license to all of Nortel’s patents that covers all Microsoft products and services, resulting from the patent cross-license signed with Nortel in 2006.”

What it means is the sale of Nortel’s patent portfolio could become a complicated and messy situation, which could not only see competitive bids but a legal battle over who owns or controls the patents.

Seemingly lost within the shuffle is that the patents are the last chapter in Nortel’s disappointing demise from tier-one telecom equipment supplier to non-entity. What was once the star of Canada’s high-tech industry is going to disappear into the history books.

Hammered by hubris, a series of strategic and tactical mistakes, weak senior management and, finally, an unwillingness to fight until the bitter end, Nortel will soon disappear, although the battle over the patents could see the “patient” hang on for a few more months.

For Canada, the sale of Radian6 is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it’s disappointing to see another Canadian company snapped up by a foreign buyer. On the other hand, it shows that successful and world-class technology companies can be nurtured and financed in Canada. Radian6 had enough time and money from investors such as BrightSpark to embrace an aggressive growth strategy to become a $40-million company.

Far too high-tech startups in Canada never get the opportunity to even attempt to get this big because they can’t find the financial support to help make it happen. Even if a startup has strong prospects and sales traction, they often have to pursue money outside Canada.

The sale of Radian6 and last summer’s sale of Sysomos to MarketWire (Note: I’m director of communications with Sysomos) should be seen huge confidence boosters for the Canadian startup scene.

Both companies are home-grown success stories that should embolden entrepreneurs, investors and government that world-class technology companies can be built in Canada.

Last month, Sarah Prevette wrote a column in the Toronto Star wondering why there weren’t more startup success stories in Canada. In many ways, she’s right that Canada’s active and enthusiastic startup community should be doing better.

But the success of Radian6 and Sysomos demonstrate with some financing, it is possible for Canadian startups to not only take on the world but dominate a new and fast-growing market such as social media monitoring and analytics.

TweetDeck can be crossed off the list now that it has been purchased by UberMedia for $30-million. For people not familiar with UberMedia, it’s owned by Bill Gross, who started a search company called Overture. And for those of you not familiar with Overture, it created the pay-per-click model that Google “borrowed” to give itself a business model.

Without much attention, Gross has started to build an intriguing portfolio of Twitter products that now includes UberTwitter, a popular Twitter app for the Blackberry and iPhone; UberCurrent, a tool to follow influencers on Twitter; and Twitdroyd, a popular app for Android phones.

The sale of TweetDeck, which has raised $5-million in venture capital, begs a few questions:

1. Why didn’t Twitter buy TweetDeck? Given the declining use of Twitter.com, which is still far from user-friendly despite the recent overhaul, it would have made a lot of sense to buy TweetDeck, the world’s leading Twitter platform. For my clients, it’s the way that I suggest they publish and monitor Twitter, mostly because of how it allows for multiple columns to track keywords. I also like how TweetDeck can be used to publisher updates on other platforms such as Facebook, Foursquare and LinkedIn.

2. If not TweetDeck, are there any start-ups that Twitter is interested in buying. Maybe it’s Vancouver-based HootSuite, which is seeing strong growth in terms of users and revenue. HootSuite has a good relationship with Twitter, and it was picked to showcase Twitter’s Promoted Tweets feature.

3. So what does Bill Gross do with TweetDeck, which has been searching for a business model since it was launched to instant acclaim in 2008? Does he start to insert some kind of advertising into the application, including in-stream advertising? Does he create an enterprise version of the product to compete with companies such as HootSuite and CoTweet? Does he create a premium version of TweetDeck with more features? You have to believe there are many people who would happily pay a one-time fee or maybe an annual subscription to access more features.

4. With TweetDeck off the table how long will it be before some of the other popular publishing applications – Seesmic, CoTweet, HootSuite – are snapped up?

For more thoughts on the UberMedia-TweetDeck deal, check out Louis Gray, who notes that it took less than 1,000 days for TweetDeck to go from “public consciousness” to acquisition. Business Insider also has some thoughts.

While Groupon hasn’t said anything, the speculation is it’s either holding out for a better offer, going to raise some more venture capital to continue its explosive growth, or intent on doing an IPO next year.

The other scenario is Groupon’s founders aren’t ready to sell. With explosive growth, it must be a thrilling and fascinating time to be at the helm. It’s a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to ride a tremendous wave to see how far it can go. Why bail just when things are getting really, really interesting?

This is the approach embraced by Mark Zuckerberg, who has maintained control of Facebook despite offers that would make him an instant billionaire. At some point, Zuckerberg is going to take the money and run, but there’s no need to do it while he’s still enjoying the experience of running a company taking the world by storm.

While there are, of course, pressures from investors who want to realize a major return on their investment, entrepreneurs have a different on the world. Whether they make $1-billion or $2-billion or even $100-million, they’ll be rich beyond their wildest dreams. To them, it becomes something that is not about the money; it’s more about the experience and the excitement of being at the right place at the right time, and basking in the spotlight that comes along with it.

Once someone sells a business, the party is over. Sure, an entrepreneur can stick around for a a couple of years to manage the transition or complete an earn-out agreement. At some point, however, most entrepreneurs get told to take a hike, or they decide to leave because being the head of a corporate unit isn’t what they like doing.

While many entrepreneurs may go on to another success ventures, very few of them ever get to enjoy the same thrill that comes with starting and running a mega-success. It’s a magical and magical existence that you don’t want to end because it’s so exciting and fun. If they can pull it off, some entrepreneurs want the ride to last rather than simply taking the highest bid.

Let’s see how long Groupon can hold out and, at the same time, hold on to their dreams.

His thinking is that the end-game is being acquired so a key part of positioning and building a start-up is being focused attracting the attention of buyers looking for good acquisitions. In the four startups that I have worked for, getting sales was a major priority because being acquired seemed so far away.

For many startups, this is an approach that makes sense because attracting another customer means getting to live for another day, paying your employees, and building a solid foundation for the business. While many entrepreneurs may dream about the pot of gold at end of the rainbow, getting acquired is a lot like winning the lottery – if it happens, that’s great but you need to create a viable business to improve the chances of attracting a buyer.

Another key consideration for startups is getting into markets where there’s opportunities to establish a foothold. Unless they can come up with a significantly better mousetrap, it doesn’t make sense to start a business that already features plenty of competition.

Not that this stops entrepreneurs from trying. The search engine market is perhaps the best example of how startups continue to think they can topple Google. And does the world really need another business-focused social network?

In an ideal world, entrepreneurs come up with an idea that is different or attacks a problem in a new way. At the same time, it solves a point a pain or makes something a lot easier or cheaper to do. If a startup can seize one of these opportunities, there is a fertile opportunity to build something interesting.

So where do acquisitions fit into the scheme of things for startups? As much as you want to build something to last, entrepreneurs also want to build something to pass to someone else for a check with lots of zeros on it. So, how much focus should entrepreneurs put on potential buyers when planning and building their companies?

If you’re trying to do more than build a business that just pays the bills and lets you take a nice vacation every year, it probably makes sense to create a “bucket list” of potential buyers, even if the chances of being bought are slim, if not non-existent.

But having a wish-list of buyers could provide some strategic and tactical guidance as the business is being built. It could take your startup into directions that may not normally be part of the mix but in the long-term could be the right moves. This isn’t to suggest startups should be fixated on potential buyers but it should be a consideration as part of long-term plans.

What do you think? Should startups be focused on potential acquirers? is there a downside to doing this?

The rise of TechCrunch into one of the technology industry’s most influential players is an amazing story. Started by Arrington, it was just one of many technology blogs battling for attention at a time when the technology market was just starting to re-emerge after the dot-com boom went bust. TechCrunch wasn’t an immediate smash-hit but Arrington’s energy and connections started to make it a must-read. In time, TechCrunch expanded with other Web sites and conferences, while Arrington became an active player in the Silicon Valley ecosystem.

While Robert Scoble suggests TechCrunch’s sales is the end of an era in tech blogging, it’s far more accurate to suggest it’s the end of an era for TechCrunch. Tech blogging will continue with existing players getting stronger, and new players emerging.

Meanwhile, TechCrunch will, no doubt, become a different creature. Sure, Arrington is going to stay involved with TechCrunch but the reality is it’s difficult, if not impossible, to maintain the same kind of involvement when you’re an employee rather than an entrepreneur putting your heart and soul into growing a business. While Arrington will be a good AOL employee for awhile, he’s an entrepreneur who will be lured by other activities and interests.

In time, TechCrunch’s influence will change as well. As much as TechCrunch has a large following, Arrington is the driving force behind what makes TechCrunch different from GigaOm, VentureBeat, Mashable and ReadWriteWeb. He is the TechCrunch brand.

Rather than being the end of an era for tech blogging, the landscape will start to shift and evolve. TechCrunch will likely remain a popular destination but the tech blogging landscape could become a more interesting place now that TechCrunch is part of AOL. With change comes opportunity – maybe even a new Arrington-like blogger with big dreams, great writing skills and a knack for self-promotion.

Not everyone may be a fan of Arrington but you have to give him huge credit for building TechCrunch into an online publishing powerhouse. As TechCrunch moves forward with a new owner, it will interesting to see how TechCrunch changes and, as important, how readers view the new TechCrunch.

In the coming months, it looks like investors will get another opportunity to test their obsession with the high-tech IPO as companies such as Skype and Hulu prepare for public offerings. If these IPOs are successful – and there’s plenty of indication they will be enthusiastically received – it could open the floodgates for all kinds of IPOs.

The question facing investors is whether Hulu and Skype are anomalies, or whether the high-tech IPO has really come back from the dead. Hulu and Skype are solid well-established businesses with revenue, subscribers and track records. They are market leaders in markets experiencing rapid growth, which makes them strong IPO candidates.

These are the kind of IPOs that, frankly, were few and far between during the dot-com boom when anything with traction was sucked into the IPO machine. Of course, many of these IPOs bombed because the companies that did them were more projects than businesses.

As much as Skype and Hulu have investors excited, I’m concerned they are the cream of the crop, and that the high-tech IPO landscape is pretty limited. For all the talk about how costs are lower so high-tech businesses can get started with less capital, the reality is the business landscape is dominated by free and freemium. This makes the marketplace volatile and uncertain because there are competitors willing to charge little or nothing to attract customers.

The companies that succeed in attracting users and revenue will no doubt be attractive and could do an IPO if they’re not acquired but how many of these kind of companies actually exist? Probably not as many as you would think.

But the other reality is there’s a lot of venture capital that has been tied up in start-ups. The VCs sense an opportunity to cash out so there will be tremendous pressure on start-ups to do an IPO. This could lead to a glut of public offerings, including many companies that probably don’t have solid enough fundamentals.

If investors should remember anything from the past decade, it’s caveat emptor because not everything with a pretty IPO bow on them is going to have a wonderful present inside.

For more on the IPO landscape, check out this story in the Financial Post.

Why eBay, the world’s leading online auction service, needed to buy a disruptive VOIP service provider – even one as popular as Skype – made little sense despite assertions there were many synergies, including how Skype would allow eBay to roll out click-to-call to enhance its core online business.

The deal was a mistake that distracted eBay and, arguably, retarded Skype’s progress.

The bottom line, however, is it wasn’t a complete disaster for eBay as they were able to get $2.75-billion for a 65% stake in Skype from a group of investors led by Index Ventures and Silver Lake Partners.

It’s a good deal for eBay because it gets the business refocused strategically, while providing eBay with some more financial stability and flexibility. eBay also gets to keep 35% as a way to ensure it shares in the wealthy if Skype becomes more successful and valuable.

More important is how it will, hopefully, provide Skype with more strategic flexibility and freedom to pursue ideas, new markets and new services that it couldn’t do while part of the eBay empire.

What’s impressive is that Skype has thrived financially while owned by eBay, so it will be interesting to see if Skype’s growth as a standalone entity will be even more impressive.