Strictly speaking, HP seems to want to enforce their confidentiality agreement as a "generally unacceptable" (FTA) non-compete. The two are separate entities, a

Strictly speaking, HP seems to want to enforce their confidentiality agreement as a "generally unacceptable" (FTA) non-compete. The two are separate entities, and although Hurd is trying to have his cake and eat it too, HP is doing the same. The article outlines an array of superficial "flaws" in the argument that Hurd should be expected to work at a high-profile tech company.. given any real thought, the article's hard backing of HP's corner is obvious. >CEOs get paid handsomely for this very reason; they are set for life, at the very least. So, if they are restrained from not working for a direct competitor for two years after leaving the firm -- sitting on $33+ million dollars, in Hurd's case -- so be it. Hurd isn't restrained from working for any individual or party -- the confidentiality agreement is, again, NOT a non-compete. >Mark Hurd also has many options. He may choose to work in the technology sector with a company that do not pose this strong a conflict of interest with HP. HP most likely would not object to companies such as some smaller tech firm, private equity, or venture capital, just to name just a few of the many options available within technology. Hurd has plenty of options, yes, but in the absence of a non-compete, who is HP, or the author, to dictate his options? Why wouldn't they object to Hurd working ANYWHERE that might utilize his same knowledge? >Moreover, many exiled CEO`s work as business consultants, advisors, teach classes at MBA programs, work for many diverse business organizations, etc. during this natural transition period. And again, more mindless spectation. Hurd could have done any of the above options, but he likely chose the most profitable and beneficial. Who wouldn't? I think Hurd is being thrown over a fire because HP is enforcing a confidentiality agreement as a de facto non-compete, and everyone seems to be going along with it. Even the author of the article himself states that Hurd is violating the 'spirit and intent' of the confidentiality agreement. If that 'spirit and intent' is non-competition, then the agreement should have been such. This is a whole lot of PR spin on HP's part, and the legalities aren't being looked at. If Hurd doesn't violate the confidentiality agreement by divulging 'trade secrets' or .. per the agreement.. "confidential" practices, then he should absolutely be permitted to utilize his former work experience in a new position. Isn't that what all of us do when transitioning to a new employer?