Forgot your password?

typodupeerror
HP Businesses Oracle The Courts News

HP Sues Hurd For Joining Oracle 301

Posted by Soulskill
from the following-the-hurd dept.
CWmike writes "Hewlett-Packard is reported to be suing former CEO Mark Hurd, who was named co-president of rival Oracle on Monday. The Wall Street Journal first reported the news, and has now posted the full text of the suit on Google Docs. Among other things, it says, 'In his new positions, Hurd will be in a situation in which he cannot perform his duties for Oracle without necessarily using and disclosing HP's trade secrets and confidential information to others.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

HP Sues Hurd For Joining Oracle

Comments Filter:
  • by bertoelcon (1557907) * <berto.el.con@gmail.cSTRAWom minus berry> on Tuesday September 07 2010, @04:22PM (#33501846)
    That's all.
  • How is it... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by tacarat (696339) on Tuesday September 07 2010, @04:22PM (#33501854) Journal
    Somebody makes sure that lowly IT workers get served up with non-compete clauses in contracts, but the guy at the top didn't?
  • Re:How is it... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by butterflysrage (1066514) on Tuesday September 07 2010, @04:25PM (#33501908)

    cause the guys at the top are the ones making that decision, and would never dream of putting something like that in that may one day limit their ability to make millions.

  • by JeffSpudrinski (1310127) on Tuesday September 07 2010, @04:25PM (#33501912)

    That's pretty much it.

    Unless there's a signed "non-compete" document from Hurd, HP will just have to live with their mess up.

    I'd be surprised if Mr. Hurd signed such a document.

    Just my $0.02

    -JJS

  • by Vancorps (746090) on Tuesday September 07 2010, @04:29PM (#33501970)
    The lawsuit isn't about Oracle competing with HP, it's about disclosing HP trade secrets. At this stage I doubt HP has any real secrets left though as their development seems quite stale.
  • by poetmatt (793785) on Tuesday September 07 2010, @04:30PM (#33501978)

    bingo.

    confidentiality means nothing. Really they're citing news articles as their reasoning for the suit.

    what HP is trying to due here, is a: trying to make Hurd look bad and b: try to extract money from oracle by forcing them to settle. Why bother with A? I'm quite certain that if he's not found guilty he could actually sue HP for libel on this one, citing the complaint.

    They're trying to claim misappropriation of trade secrets, but considering he has been at HP maybe a week? They have nothing to show for it at all.

    Really, HP has to be out of their minds to do this.

  • by mkawick (190367) on Tuesday September 07 2010, @04:32PM (#33502000)

    Also, they are demanding immediate injunctive relief... which court is available that can read this complaint today. With courts slammed and Congress unable to approve judges (or do much of anything useful), where will anyone be able to provide "immediate" injunctive relief?

    Lastly, Hurd hasn't done anything yet. They are finding him guilty without any proof, before the fact, and without due process. Boy is HP a bunch of brats... "we can't have him and you can't either".

    At least they didn't try to have him killed.

  • by strangeattraction (1058568) on Tuesday September 07 2010, @04:33PM (#33502026)
    You are given the parachute in return for the non-compete clause. Therefore you are being compensated for not just getting fired and going to the competition and spilling your guts. The grace period lets your knowledge specific to the company go out of date.
  • by Red Flayer (890720) on Tuesday September 07 2010, @04:38PM (#33502110) Journal

    You are given the parachute in return for the non-compete clause.

    Maybe a little bit. But I think it's more for not airing dirty laundry that might have bad impacts on the stock price.

    But mostly, you're given the golden parachute so that you will return the favor in kind at the corporations where you sit on the board. Isn't that how the game is played?

  • by zero_out (1705074) on Tuesday September 07 2010, @04:57PM (#33502320)
    He made lots of money for stockholders, but at the expense of the employees. Remember, CEOs work for the company, which is defined as the shareholders. They often view their employees as resources to be exploited, like untapped oil reserves, or forests full of uncut trees. To this end, they are employers, with the power to hire and fire. Good employers take care of their employees. Bad ones exploit them. According to many current and former HP employees, Mark Hurd served the shareholders well, steering the company in a direction that made them a lot of money, but did so by exploiting his employees. Ergo, good CEO, but bad employer.
  • Suck it HP (Score:4, Insightful)

    by l0ungeb0y (442022) on Tuesday September 07 2010, @05:08PM (#33502438) Homepage Journal

    California is a Right to Work State, you want to sue to prevent someone from having a job? Then move to Washington or New York.
    Here in California we recognize the need for a person to earn a living plying their skill is more important than your need to treat people like property.
    But hey, since those lawyers are salaried, better to use them to harass Mr. Sexual Harassment to put those payroll dollars to work am I right?

  • Re:Suck it HP (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 07 2010, @05:22PM (#33502562)

    "California is a Right to Work State, you want to sue to prevent someone from having a job?"

    He got a 40 million dollar severance. He never needs another job, period.

    He may WANT one, but he doesn't need one, ever again.

  • by mjwalshe (1680392) on Tuesday September 07 2010, @05:34PM (#33502698)
    Depends on where Hurd was employed as a lot of companies incorporate in Delaware for tax reasons - I could see companies doing similar things with employment ie their Catberts shop around for an employer friendly state and make them "mobile" workers who are “employed” in the employer friendly state.

    Basically at this level you hire expensive barristers and attempt to rip the other side to pieces in court – I suspect that HP will bring up all the “dirt” that they hid when Hurd left – presumably under the American equivalent of a “compromise agreement”
  • by HermMunster (972336) on Tuesday September 07 2010, @05:42PM (#33502806)

    This has happened before. I think it was with some Microsoft employee living in CA that went to work for Google. I can't remember the specifics. Though they still hired the guy it was agreed that he wouldn't be used in a position that directly exposed his knowledge gained from his prior job.

    In reality, though you can't limit it all. Some people need to work and some are highly specialized. It would be onerous to force people to comply with non-compete clauses (if they were valid in CA). In this case, the termination would probably play a bigger role than if he were to have left on his own. Had HP sued him for leaving on his own with the intent of disclosing trade secrets that would have been another matter. But he was fired and to find gainful employment at his level of expertise he would have to disclose some information. This has to be accounted for.

    Frankly, this is simply spiteful behavior on HP's part. In the end, after the suit has ended, if it goes to trial, I'm sure we'll find out more about how HP and Hurd parted ways--particularly the fact that their now in charge CEO illegally aired Hurd's dirty laundry--which it is well known that an employer is forbidden from doing that. I'm sure Hurd will have his own leverage against the board and Chairman.

  • by hedwards (940851) on Tuesday September 07 2010, @05:51PM (#33502924)

    "confidentiality means nothing"

    I'm curious why you believe this.

    Probably because it's true. Once you're no longer working for the company you are no longer under any obligation to keep anything secret, unless you've agreed not to, either in writing or as a part of a verbal agreement. I used to work for a company that required all kinds of silence about just about everything. The moment I quit though, I stopped being silent about any of it. At that point there wasn't a damned thing they could do about it as I hadn't agreed to remain silent after separating from the company, and they knew I had the goods to prove everything I was saying. And more really, because I had documentation on other things that they'd been doing which I haven't leaked.

  • by HermMunster (972336) on Tuesday September 07 2010, @05:57PM (#33503016)

    Hurd has overall knowledge but non-specific. His job was to direct the goals of the company. It wasn't to design chips, OSes, etc. His knowledge is about the direction the company was going, how to set up their priorities, how to spend and grow. He didn't have specific knowledge about the coding of projects or the design of hardware, just the direction those would take.

    Oracle and Ellison are not really competitors to HP in the vast majority of areas where Oracle generates revenue (Oracle is primarily a relational database company selling to big companies). HP's competing OS is a non-starter. Even Oracle's acquisition of products from Sun wouldn't be such a major threat in any market to HP. As far as business models go Oracle's and HP's are probably quite different as they target different markets for the most part, as Oracle doesn't make printers nor desktop PCs and what they do compete with is probably limited to server markets where HP just doesn't have that much moxy.

    If they try to limit Hurd's overall knowledge exposure they'll loose, they'll have to overcome years of legal history where one CEO goes to work for another company. And, this is HP's burden. HP must prove what they claim.

  • by tepples (727027) <slash2006@noSPAm.pineight.com> on Tuesday September 07 2010, @06:06PM (#33503120) Homepage Journal

    He was paid by HP shareholders to be loyal to them, not to be loyal to workers.

    Sometimes, for a manager, loyalty to the shareholders includes loyalty to the employees. Otherwise, shareholders lose access to valuable human resources.

  • by Koil (786141) on Tuesday September 07 2010, @06:10PM (#33503168)

    Mark Hurd's success is directly tied to the amount of people he can. He's absolutely known as a hatchetman, and will do so at the drop of a hat. The problem is, it works...he doesn't care about the employees, just the board, and doing what he does best makes them very happy.

    Hurd used to be the CEO for NCR when I worked for him, and he did the same thing there....from there he moved to HP, and whacked something in the ball park of 7-9k jobs right away. Nothing will make a company look profitable faster than cutting payroll.

    That being said, and my overall feeling for the guy is that he is a complete douche...HP screwed up in letting him go, plain and simple. As someone mentioned, you can't have it both ways, HP.

    Secondly....I've followed this story a little bit, due to my knowledge of the man, and doesn't it seem to anyone else that the whole breakup w/ arguably their most successful CEO in a very long time, went really fast and really quietly?? (relatively speaking)

    I believe there was more to the story as to why he left HP...what that it is,the world may never know.

  • by tomhudson (43916) <barbara.hudson@b ... m ['ra-' in gap]> on Tuesday September 07 2010, @06:27PM (#33503350) Journal
    12 million will disappear VERY quickly in a case like this - discovery will be both VERY extensive and VERY expensive. To put it into perspective - all the parties in the SCO case have spent north of $100 million so far (SCO and Novell together make up more than half that, and then there's IBM, RedHat, Autozone, etc). And it ain't over yet.

    Also, the agreement specifies that he will indemnify HP both for proven damages as well as statutory damages. If the courts look at the evidence from the face of the agreement - that his non-compete was worth $12,224,693, and decide to fine him triple damages, and then we throw in the lawyer's fees, there's over $50 million just out of his pocket. Then there's Oracle and John Does # 1 through 25.

  • by PsyciatricHelp (951182) on Tuesday September 07 2010, @06:49PM (#33503588)
    the point is you can't prove nor disprove. which is exactly why companies bar you from going to competitors. He may think he is not using or exposing trade secrets and is safe but then again that is how security leaks start. Humans are weak. in all cases he cannot do an effective job against the competitor with out using knowledge he knows about the competitor. its that simple.
  • by perpenso (1613749) on Tuesday September 07 2010, @07:02PM (#33503694) Homepage

    There's a limit to what they can force non-disclosure on. Otherwise, it would be a one hit wonder for so many managers and executives.

    No. Trade secrets and proprietary information are off limits in perpetuity as long as the company properly identified and secured such information and continues to do so.

    I think what you are getting at are the experience and general skills a person develops on the job. These are things that may be taken from job to job without restriction.

    Lets say that while at HP Hurd developed personal business relationships with executives at company A. Lets say he has experience negotiating with company A. Now that he is at Oracle he is free to leverage the personal relationships and negotiating experience (what are the other sides tells, general strategies, etc), but he is not allowed to use any information he has about HP contracts or deals in his decision making process or negotiations. Due to the difficulty of doing the later courts have sometimes prohibited executives from engaging in certain activities at their new employers.

  • by redelm (54142) on Tuesday September 07 2010, @07:15PM (#33503802) Homepage

    HP's Board may be pretend to be aggrieved, but there is little they can do. California basically bans non-compete clauses. Some lawyers will get rich, and it will all be settled out of sight.

    It would be more convincing if HP weren't such d@mned hypocrits: they complain of corporate secret leakage, yet they hired in Carly Fiorio as CEO from Lucent to get networking going and Mark Furd himself from NCR. Both "closer" in market terms to HP than Oracle is.

    I think the HP Bored is just unhappy Mark bounced back quickly and very vexed the market agrees with him (Oracle's stock when up, HP down). Arrogant SOBs. I'd be embarrassed to work for them. Or buy their products.

  • by cusco (717999) <brian...bixby@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday September 07 2010, @07:18PM (#33503834)
    Plus, he's a freaking Executive, what the hell secrets does he know besides who's in bed with who (financially or physically) on the board? It's not like any corporate executive today actually has anything to do with actual development of product, they're there to provide 'leadership' and drain the pension funds into their own bank accounts.
  • by tftp (111690) on Tuesday September 07 2010, @08:26PM (#33504290) Homepage

    what the hell secrets does he know besides who's in bed with who

    That in itself is not worthless. However executives also know what markets the company is planning to go after, what new products just started in development, what companies may be acquired and why and for how much, and so on. This stuff is far more valuable than a schematic of a "new" inkjet.

    If he hasn't signed a specific contract, where HP pays him for not working for competitors, HP can't do anything. I think this is just an intimidation tactic, which will have zero effect on Oracle. It's not like Oracle lawyers weren't consulted about hiring a major executive from a major competitor. I'm sure Hurd's lawyers and Oracle lawyers spent many hours together sorting it out before anything became public.

  • by corbettw (214229) <corbettw@nospAm.yahoo.com> on Tuesday September 07 2010, @09:15PM (#33504578) Journal

    Well, if HP really doesn't want Oracle to use Hurd's knowledge of their products, Oracle could completely distance themselves from HP for a year or two. Heck, they come out and announce they no longer support Oracle running on HP hardware, except for those contracts already in existence, and that Oracle shops should switch to Dell servers. Just to make sure no HP IP inadvertently ends up in Oracle products. I'm sure that would make the HP board very, very happy.

  • by ultranova (717540) on Wednesday September 08 2010, @12:30AM (#33505420)

    Why would they want to give you new functionality for free when they can just force you to buy a whole new server!

    That's pretty much capitalism in a nutshell, and is the reason why everything is as durable as wet cardboard nowadays.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 08 2010, @02:34AM (#33505828)

    Bullshit.
    You are given the *Salary* in return for not working for someone else.
    If HP so badly needs this man to not work for Oracle, they could have continued to employ him.

Many pages make a thick book, except for pocket Bibles which are on very very thin paper.

Working...