3 ms·
I think it probably looks sensible to lawyers, boards and shareholders but as the article says: The decision to move forward puts HPE on a reputational tightrop
by ggm 2y ago
I think it probably looks sensible to lawyers, boards and shareholders but as the article says: The decision to move forward puts HPE on a reputational tightrope. While a UK civil claim automatically ensures that the case passes to the estate of a defendant in the event of a death, the prospect of pursuing the money is likely to be deeply unpopular after the tragedy.
It's a lot of money to forgo on the basis "the great unwashed who don't own shares directly won't like it" -Their superannuation and investment funds very probably would want this money recovered, if there was a good chance of winning the case.
- re-thc 2y ago> puts HPE on a reputational tightrope Since when was HPE popular / on a good reputation anyway?
- ggm 2y agoUgh. To me, probably around the time HPIB entered the hospital/diagnostic space as a universal attachment bus for things like ultrasound: HP make stellar diagnostic systems, some of which seem to use X10 (precursor to X11) as the GUI, even now. But the last HP system I interacted with had a TPM which drove me crazy (it was a DNS system using the TPM to manage DNSSEC keys). The point is, this is about shareholders and boards. The people who judge a company by how much money it makes them not by how good the equipment is. HP-UX was a dog of an OS. But they made good systems during that time, and made their shareholders very happy.