HP Pays $14.5M to Make Civil Charges Disappear

theodp writes "The California Attorney General's Office negotiated a $14.5 million payoff from HP as part of a settlement that calls for the state not to pursue civil charges related to the now infamous spy scandal against the company and its current or former officers or directors (felony criminal charges against five individuals still remain). HP also agreed to maintain the watchdog positions of chief ethics officer and chief privacy officer for five years."

Buying injustice...

[Justen]

The case did only involve a civil complaint, so it probably would have ultimately ended up with a financial settlement and some sort of compromised "corrective" measures like we see here, but I really think this is an injustice for the people who had their identities and privacy compromised, and for HP shareholders in the long run. The evidence that senior executives at HP, potentially including Mark Hurd, either ignored or were ignorant of the ongoing, "probably illegal" actions [washingtonpost.com] is pretty well documented, and pretty overwhelming.

Patricia Dunn took pretty much all the heat for this, and that's unfortunate for her and HP. It seems to me like she should have had a better grip on what was happening at HP, but it doesn't seem to me like she should have been the only one with that responsibility. A full, objective, and independent investigation should have been the first think on everybody's list. Instead, this case is now settled, Congress has moved on, and Dunn will be focussed on proving her innocence.

The unfortunate thing for Mark Hurd is that his level of responsibility and accountability wasn't determined in this process. The second HP hits a performance blip, this scandal will be the first thing on every shareholder's mind when they're thinking of who to blame. When that day comes, I wouldn't want to be in Mark Hurd's shoes.

--
justen
justen.blogspot.com [blogspot.com]

Settlement is common in civil cases!

[denebian devil]

The summary is very misleading in the way that it describes HP as paying money to make the case disappear. This wasn't a criminal case where they were buying off a judge to rule favorably. This was a civil matter. and 99 times out of 100, civil matters are about one thing: money. They can either pay money in the settlement, pay money as a result of a judgment from a trial, be dismissed through a motion, or be found not guilty from a trial. Settlement is COMMON, because it allows both sides to save costs from not having to pay for a costly trial. And trials are MUCH more costly than most of what happens pre-trial.

This isn't some back-alley dealing, it's one legitimate and often used method of resolving civil disputes quickly and cost-effectively. And on top of that, it means that HP can't appeal the decision because they agreed to it. If the case had gone to trial and verdict and resulted in a decision HP didn't like, they could have appealed and kept the case going for years without resolution, while at the same time increasing both their costs and the costs of the state in trying the case.

Re:A more fashionable solution!

[inviolet]

Such are the consequences of giving human rights to corporations.

No, it's not. It's a consequence of the corporate veil [wikipedia.org] and the general unwillingness to pierce it. The veil is considered sacred because it empowers the members of a corporation to take risky, productive steps in the face of possible backlash -- be it legal or financial.

The veil is further justifiable by realizing that corporations encourage sociopathic groupthink, by their very nature... and so their members are (to some degree) excused for doing so. I say "to some degree" because as the felony charges in this case demonstrate, members are not excused for the serious stuff.

Another way to look at it is to state the issue in your terms: the veil is the way that a corporation's members pool their human right to free association. The veil essentially announces to the world "If you wish to associate with any of our number, then you do agree to do so by treating us as collective and unseverable". The law gives force to this agreement by standardization, and this results in efficiency gains all around.

Of course it also results in sociopathic behavior... but that is a cost and it usually compares favorably to the yield.

settlement fund

[Anonymous Coward]

--
As part of the settlement [...] HP will "finance a new law enforcement fund to fight violations of privacy and *intellectual-property* rights"
--

So... HP is to give money to RIAA/MPAA?