While I'm not one who usually advoates litigation, I'm glad to hear this... other corporations need to take heed that this kind of predatory "big brother" behavior is simply not okay.

It is high time this crap about settlements stopped.
If a natural person cannot be offered a settlement if he/she committed a crime, why should a corporation be any different?

A corporation is an extension of a natural person for separate liability.
Since it is manned by people, the natural persons responsible for committing a crime oin behalf of a corporation should be jailed.

Why should sgareholders suffer losses because some idiot CEO or criminal CFO cooked up statements or committed a crime by using Corporate Veil.

After all the corporate veil does not apply if the Govt. is owned any money. Similarly the corporate veil should not apply when shareholders and pensioners get robbed of their dividend because of settlements.

I suggest the journalists sue the CEO directly as a person who ordered a crime.

Makes sense. Once the government decides that individual privacy is no longer important or desirable, all in the name of making *their* job easier, why wouldn't corporates follow suite? It is after all easier to monitor journalists rather than upgrading and perfecting their own security policies.

Whenever a corporation or corporate agent does something morally questionable, there's always apologists claiming it was necessary in order to show due diligence to the profitability of the company and interests of the share holders. I pitty those corporate officers who are unable to form an argument against sleezy behavior for fear of being run on a rail in to court. It must be tough for them. They should be quietly cheering this lawsuit. If successful, it'll make a great argument. When asked to something reprehensible, the cornered agent can note "look at what happened to HP - do we really want to take that kind of risk?" And voila - they're not putting morals above profit... they're being fiduciarily responsible.

Well, unlike Paris Hilton, HP is a big advertiser, too: that means that yes, their press releases will still be printed. And yes, their products will still be evaluated as fairly as before (which says almost nothing), though I guess some could start criticising their huge, bulky printer drivers and accompanying software.

I do admit, a media boycott would sound nice, but it isn't going to happen. What would be even better, though, is detailed reporting on the case, with comments, analyses etc. That, however, depends on how big an advertiser HP really is in a particular paper/magazine, i.e. whether the journalists or editors are bought or scared.

The media are powerful; all that remains to be seen is whether HP managed to create themselves a powerful enemy.

That's why I, for one, am so glad that these journalists refused to settle. Unless you stand up to them, they'll just keep on acting as bullies.