5 ms·

Here's what I don't get. If the agreement he violated only required him to protect HP's trade secrets and such, how can merely taking a job violate it? Even if

Here's what I don't get. If the agreement he violated only required him to protect HP's trade secrets and such, how can merely taking a job violate it? Even if it's likely that he would reveal these secrets at some point in the future, is that enough to constitute violating this agreement? Wouldn't they need proof that he has already released sensitive information to Oracle?

mgrouchy 16y ago
This. If he hasn't actually revealed any trade secrets yet, why are they suing them? Because he may reveal trade secrets? I understand HP's interest and need to protect themselves, but they are doing it preemptively. As of yet, he hasn't done anything wrong.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  Because the day he starts working at Oracle he will start having to answer questions and make decisions that will be based on confidential information he learned at HP. The risk of that damaging HP's business is high enough that HP feels it's necessary to sue him.
  - Blunt 16y ago
    I just find this highly unlikely... Managers at large multinational companies just are just a few levels deep into management tend to know jack about 'trade secrets' or what the actual secret sauce is much less have their hands on it via separation of duties policies. I don't see the real "threat" here.
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      He knows the plans for future servers and high-end storage that will compete with Sun's lineup.
      - rbanffy 16y ago
        Oh... right... he doesn't know... Mark, is that you?
po 16y ago
The non-compete is not a non-disclosure agreement. The second he gives a command to someone at Oracle he is using his knowledge of HP's competitive position to inform his decision making process. It is impossible for him to perform his role at Oracle without competing with HP. EDIT Although, upon closer inspection they are saying it isn't a non-compete agreement and are calling it a "confidentiality pact" whatever that is.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- tptacek 16y ago
  There's no such thing as a "non-compete" or an "NDA" per se; they're all just contracts with terms. It's for this reason that you need to have a lawyer you can send contracts to before signing them; you'd be surprised how often you find non-compete and IP assignment clauses in "NDA's".
kenthorvath 16y ago
I think the argument is more that Hurd is in a decision-making and strategy forming position. He is privy to all the inside information that HP has to date, and as such, he is in a unique position to make decisions that can do serious damage to HP. As an co-president of Oracle, he has a duty to make decisions that benefit Oracle, as ex-CEO of HP (and with a non-compete), he has an obligation to not make decisions based on information he attained during his tenure that would harm HP. This is a decisive and likely unresolvable conflict of interest. What is most interesting is the politics of it all. Oracle's CEO (Ellison) is a friend of both Mark Hurd and Steve Jobs. What if this farce is designed to undermine HP's foray into the tablet space with WebOS, which may compete with Apple? There is probably a lot of scheming beneath the surface. Any conspiracy theories? I love conspiracies.
- brownleej 16y ago
  I'd have to see the text of Hurd's agreement to be sure, but if it is a confidentiality agreement, it might not prevent him from making decisions based on the inside information he had. My assumption when I see "confidentiality agreement" is that he is only forbidden from disclosing the information to someone else. He could, theoretically, do his job at Oracle without telling anyone anything about HP's plans. You also mention the non-compete provision, but the article seems to imply that his agreement with HP didn't include a non-compete provision.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    If he makes decisions based on his confidential information and those decisions can be observed by a third party he is, in effect, revealing that information.
  - po 16y ago
    You're right. Non-compete agreements are not allowed in California. We definitely wont be able to know until we see what the confidentiality agreement was.

mgrouchy 16y ago

This. If he hasn't actually revealed any trade secrets yet, why are they suing them? Because he may reveal trade secrets? I understand HP's interest and need to protect themselves, but they are doing it preemptively. As of yet, he hasn't done anything wrong.

rbanffy 16y ago
Because the day he starts working at Oracle he will start having to answer questions and make decisions that will be based on confidential information he learned at HP. The risk of that damaging HP's business is high enough that HP feels it's necessary to sue him.
- Blunt 16y ago
  I just find this highly unlikely... Managers at large multinational companies just are just a few levels deep into management tend to know jack about 'trade secrets' or what the actual secret sauce is much less have their hands on it via separation of duties policies. I don't see the real "threat" here.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    He knows the plans for future servers and high-end storage that will compete with Sun's lineup.
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      Oh... right... he doesn't know... Mark, is that you?

po 16y ago

The non-compete is not a non-disclosure agreement. The second he gives a command to someone at Oracle he is using his knowledge of HP's competitive position to inform his decision making process. It is impossible for him to perform his role at Oracle without competing with HP. EDIT Although, upon closer inspection they are saying it isn't a non-compete agreement and are calling it a "confidentiality pact" whatever that is.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
tptacek 16y ago
There's no such thing as a "non-compete" or an "NDA" per se; they're all just contracts with terms. It's for this reason that you need to have a lawyer you can send contracts to before signing them; you'd be surprised how often you find non-compete and IP assignment clauses in "NDA's".

kenthorvath 16y ago

I think the argument is more that Hurd is in a decision-making and strategy forming position. He is privy to all the inside information that HP has to date, and as such, he is in a unique position to make decisions that can do serious damage to HP. As an co-president of Oracle, he has a duty to make decisions that benefit Oracle, as ex-CEO of HP (and with a non-compete), he has an obligation to not make decisions based on information he attained during his tenure that would harm HP. This is a decisive and likely unresolvable conflict of interest. What is most interesting is the politics of it all. Oracle's CEO (Ellison) is a friend of both Mark Hurd and Steve Jobs. What if this farce is designed to undermine HP's foray into the tablet space with WebOS, which may compete with Apple? There is probably a lot of scheming beneath the surface. Any conspiracy theories? I love conspiracies.

brownleej 16y ago
I'd have to see the text of Hurd's agreement to be sure, but if it is a confidentiality agreement, it might not prevent him from making decisions based on the inside information he had. My assumption when I see "confidentiality agreement" is that he is only forbidden from disclosing the information to someone else. He could, theoretically, do his job at Oracle without telling anyone anything about HP's plans. You also mention the non-compete provision, but the article seems to imply that his agreement with HP didn't include a non-compete provision.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  If he makes decisions based on his confidential information and those decisions can be observed by a third party he is, in effect, revealing that information.
- po 16y ago
  You're right. Non-compete agreements are not allowed in California. We definitely wont be able to know until we see what the confidentiality agreement was.