I thought his paper was showing P/=NP which is the already (more generally) accepted theory in computer fields. I'd understand it reflecting poorly if one of HP

I thought his paper was showing P/=NP which is the already (more generally) accepted theory in computer fields. I'd understand it reflecting poorly if one of HP's researchers was claiming P=NP against the accepted wisdom. It would however reflect great if this guys paper is a proof of P/=NP or even if it's simply a step forward.