4 ms·

I'm not sure that I understand why this lawsuit is vindictive. HP fires its CEO and a week later the guy is working for their direct competitor? Yeah; that's go

I'm not sure that I understand why this lawsuit is vindictive. HP fires its CEO and a week later the guy is working for their direct competitor? Yeah; that's going to result in a lawsuit one-hundred percent of the time. You think Hurd might know a few HP secrets? But I bet Oracle just wants him because he's such a darned hard worker.

turtle4 16y ago
To be fair: If he were capable of leading one giant tech company, he is a candidate to run another. HP stock went up something like 130% the first couple years he was there, and tracked better than the nasdaq for the rest of his time there. If Oracle feels like he has learned his lesson or if someone there (Larry) thinks he can make it clear that certain things can't be brought along to the new job (excessive spending, harassment), then he could be an excellent candidate, completely separate from any trade secrets. I'm not saying what he might know doesn't play a role in the hire, but your post seems to indicate there is no way it could be considered a merit-based only, and I'm not sure that is the case.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  > HP stock went up something like 130% the first couple years he was there, and tracked better than the nasdaq for the rest of his time there. This could also be explained by a remarkably incompetent predecessor.
- Hoff 16y ago
  Stock prices, agency ratings, and short-term versus long-term, the efficacy of tranches, credit and collateral paper, and various other metrics have all been found, um, somewhat unreliable in recent years. Most anywhere outside of what you do know about your stock or bond purchases, you're betting as much on who you're listening to for your decision as with what paper you're buying. Historically, more than a few offerings have had stellar and increasing prices right up to the implosion. This in general terms, and without intending any implications toward the recent nor future stock prices or success of either HP or Oracle.
nanairo 16y ago
I believe you are right if... HP and Hurd wrote an agreement not to go to work for HP's competitors. Several companies do this, so they may very well have (in which case Hurd is in a world of pain). On the other hand if they haven't, I am not sure what claim they can make.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  Actually they do NOT have a non-compete clause. He can work for competitors. He does have a confidentiality clause. Although I would have thought they'd need evidence that he breached it. I've worked with many ex-CxOs who have had similar clauses. And they are all very careful to not talk about past work experience. Maybe HP has a case, but it sure feels like they're kind of upset because they know Hurd is a pretty stellar CEO (all things considered), and it kind of sucks to lose him to a chief competitor.
  - markstansbury 16y ago
    Hurd must have one hell of a lawyer if he negotiated that type of severance without any non-compete language. To that gentleman I say, well done sir. Well done. At any rate, I bet it will be difficult not to breach the confidentiality clause, though that really depends on how broad it is. The lawsuit is probably just designed to scare Hurd away from the job. Does he really want to risk that severance package for the freedom to resume working 7 days a week?
    - hga 16y ago
      This is California, non-competes presumptively evil there, although I had the impression his sort of job might be in the category where they are allowed.
  - hga 16y ago
    The whole basis for allowing non-competes as a matter of public policy (in states other than California) is to prevent "the first bite of the apple", i.e. to prevent irreparable harm from the first use of an employee's knowledge of trade secrets. For most of us (e.g. hackers/programmers) that's generally not a big deal let alone legitimate, which might explain how Silicon Valley has done so well in an legal regime free of them (or as I argue, it's the most important factor in SV's success; it's certainly the only unique one). In this case, HP's claim that "he cannot perform his duties for Oracle without necessarily using and disclosing HP's trade secrets and confidential information to others" has a lot of merit. How could he possibly do his job, assuming it includes Sun systems stuff where HP directly competes, while compartmentalizing his very current knowledge of HP's legitimate trade secrets. E.g. knowledge of HPs major customers and their pain points, knowledge of how HP sees the market and what it is developing in response; heck, knowledge of how HP is planning on converting more Sun customers to HP. I loathe non-competes in general, but this sure looks like a legitimate exception to me.

turtle4 16y ago

To be fair: If he were capable of leading one giant tech company, he is a candidate to run another. HP stock went up something like 130% the first couple years he was there, and tracked better than the nasdaq for the rest of his time there. If Oracle feels like he has learned his lesson or if someone there (Larry) thinks he can make it clear that certain things can't be brought along to the new job (excessive spending, harassment), then he could be an excellent candidate, completely separate from any trade secrets. I'm not saying what he might know doesn't play a role in the hire, but your post seems to indicate there is no way it could be considered a merit-based only, and I'm not sure that is the case.

rbanffy 16y ago
> HP stock went up something like 130% the first couple years he was there, and tracked better than the nasdaq for the rest of his time there. This could also be explained by a remarkably incompetent predecessor.
Hoff 16y ago
Stock prices, agency ratings, and short-term versus long-term, the efficacy of tranches, credit and collateral paper, and various other metrics have all been found, um, somewhat unreliable in recent years. Most anywhere outside of what you do know about your stock or bond purchases, you're betting as much on who you're listening to for your decision as with what paper you're buying. Historically, more than a few offerings have had stellar and increasing prices right up to the implosion. This in general terms, and without intending any implications toward the recent nor future stock prices or success of either HP or Oracle.

nanairo 16y ago

I believe you are right if... HP and Hurd wrote an agreement not to go to work for HP's competitors. Several companies do this, so they may very well have (in which case Hurd is in a world of pain). On the other hand if they haven't, I am not sure what claim they can make.

kenjackson 16y ago
Actually they do NOT have a non-compete clause. He can work for competitors. He does have a confidentiality clause. Although I would have thought they'd need evidence that he breached it. I've worked with many ex-CxOs who have had similar clauses. And they are all very careful to not talk about past work experience. Maybe HP has a case, but it sure feels like they're kind of upset because they know Hurd is a pretty stellar CEO (all things considered), and it kind of sucks to lose him to a chief competitor.
- markstansbury 16y ago
  Hurd must have one hell of a lawyer if he negotiated that type of severance without any non-compete language. To that gentleman I say, well done sir. Well done. At any rate, I bet it will be difficult not to breach the confidentiality clause, though that really depends on how broad it is. The lawsuit is probably just designed to scare Hurd away from the job. Does he really want to risk that severance package for the freedom to resume working 7 days a week?
  - hga 16y ago
    This is California, non-competes presumptively evil there, although I had the impression his sort of job might be in the category where they are allowed.
- hga 16y ago
  The whole basis for allowing non-competes as a matter of public policy (in states other than California) is to prevent "the first bite of the apple", i.e. to prevent irreparable harm from the first use of an employee's knowledge of trade secrets. For most of us (e.g. hackers/programmers) that's generally not a big deal let alone legitimate, which might explain how Silicon Valley has done so well in an legal regime free of them (or as I argue, it's the most important factor in SV's success; it's certainly the only unique one). In this case, HP's claim that "he cannot perform his duties for Oracle without necessarily using and disclosing HP's trade secrets and confidential information to others" has a lot of merit. How could he possibly do his job, assuming it includes Sun systems stuff where HP directly competes, while compartmentalizing his very current knowledge of HP's legitimate trade secrets. E.g. knowledge of HPs major customers and their pain points, knowledge of how HP sees the market and what it is developing in response; heck, knowledge of how HP is planning on converting more Sun customers to HP. I loathe non-competes in general, but this sure looks like a legitimate exception to me.