I don't really understand your point of view at all.

What do you like about MS?  They are a company that seems to have no limits in the evils they will commit.

Nintendo should stay a games only company, this is what makes them great.  And MS... well, i don't care what MS does.

These two companies are waaaayyyyy to big to be able to coexist together, not to mention one is American and one is Japanese... you have a better chance of seeing GM merge with Toyota.

Edit: the one good thing about such merger would be that we'd finally get solid online play for Nintendo games as well as HD versions of Mario, Zelda, Metroid, etc..  they'd easily have the best visuals of any games up to that point hands down, especially Zelda.

You know, about 18 years ago now, Nintendo did almost go into a merger deal (or what would have resulted in a merger deal) to make a CD-based add-on for the SNES. After they looked at the contract a bit closer and realized that they'd basically be handing the keys of their company over to the corporate giant that was offering to "help" them, however, they backed out. The company in question, as is well known, was Sony. So I don't think Nintendo would be too keen on agreeing to a merger after their last experience with an MS-like company.

Though on a hypothetical level, I don't think it'd be good either. Large companies are much more resistant to innovation, and particularly to disruption and Blue Ocean strategies (due to mis-perceptions of the risk-taking involved). It would be infinitely better for all concerned if Nintendo remains small and independent.

Yes. You are the only one.

@Resident Hazard: Public as governmental? Well the government owns it.
Publicly traded companies (which Nintendo is) then again is owned by owning its stocks. More stocks you own, the more you own from the company. If you own more than 50% of the shares, you practically own the company, since you have full control of the company. By japanese laws, if another company owns more than 30% of other companys shares, they are count as same company. For example; Nissan is owned by Renault, by a little over 30% of the shares, and in Japan, Nissan is one part of Renault, when in the west, Renault would be only a major shareholder instead of parent company (in order to be a parent company, 50% share is required). I can't be sure about japanese laws, but they may require a large amount of company stock being owned by the company itself, which would explain the "30% rule".

@Sky Render: As far as i know, the deal was 25% of the upcoming consoles profits (HW/SW) would have gone to Sony. So i don't see it leading to merger, but maybe you can enlighten me a little.

Nintendo does not need MS, you claim that it would be cool because of MS hardware?
It was nintendo's choice not to become an HD console, they could do this same kind of console as 360, but chosen differently.

I really dislike MS as a company, plus Ninty is doing amazingly well and still releasing the best games out of everyone so no way.

The original SNES CD deal, bdbdbd, would have given Sony 100% of the profits off of any and all SNES CD unit sales as well as all software-related profits from SNES CD games that would otherwise have gone to Nintendo, and would give Sony full access to the Super Famicom architecture as well (meaning they could make an off-brand "SNES CD" combined unit without Nintendo's permission). The only practical options available to Nintendo were a.) nasty legal battles over the inevitable SNES CD combo unit from Sony and the huge profit losses from Sony getting all SNES CD-related revenue, b.) merger with Sony to prevent aforementioned nasty legal battles and tons of lost profits, or c.) dropping the deal. They oped for choice C, of course.

I think it was only 1 quarter that year and they stilll made a profit for the year.

Mario Bros (the arcade game not SMB) was on the Atari 7800. Plus Donkey Kong was on lots of systems.

they would both screw each other......
nintendo and m$ are both money hungry(don't want to go into details)