Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

HP Oracle The Courts Your Rights Online

HP CEO Goes On the Lam As Oracle Hunts Him Down 137

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the it-only-gets-stranger dept.
theodp writes "Oracle said HP has refused to accept a subpoena requiring new CEO Leo Apotheker to testify in a trial against his former employer SAP, which will determine how much SAP owes Oracle for copyright infringement by its discontinued TomorrowNow unit. 'Mr. Apotheker started work for HP on Monday, but it now appears that the HP board of directors has decided to keep him away from HP's headquarters and outside the court's jurisdiction,' an Oracle spokeswoman said. 'We will continue to try to serve him,' she added. An HP spokeswoman countered: 'Given Leo's limited knowledge of and role in the matter, Oracle's last-minute effort to require him to appear live at trial is no more than an effort to harass him and interfere with his duties and responsibilities as HP's CEO.' The spokeswoman declined to discuss the whereabouts of Mr. Apotheker, who was featured in a 2006 SAP/TomorrowNow press release attacking the 'uncertainty' of Oracle. Coincidentally, among the charges leveled at SAP/TomorrowNow was 'pretextual customer log-in,' an area in which HP has some subject matter expertise."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

HP CEO Goes On the Lam As Oracle Hunts Him Down

Comments Filter:
  • hmm (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nomadic (141991) <nomadicworld@gmail. c o m> on Thursday November 04, 2010 @09:54AM (#34124334) Homepage
    Seems a little silly, the proper approach is to file a motion to quash the trial subpoena. It's a pretty simple motion and would be a lot easier than hiding your CEO.
  • Is it me or (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anon-Admin (443764) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @10:04AM (#34124454) Homepage Journal

    has HP become less than reputable, Sun's continued existence become questionable, Oracle's motives become dubious, all while Linux continues to gain market share.

    Ok, the Linux bit was just for fun, but really what in the heck is the Tech world smoking. It is getting strange!

  • How about... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by blisteringsilence (1290138) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @10:09AM (#34124538)
    He's traveling right now. I saw him in Plano last week, and he's been to many HP sites worldwide in the last 3 weeks, in a bid to calm employees and reassure HP's biggest customers. I don't know what this BS is about the board keeping him away. He's doing his job, meeting people and reaching out.

    And after hearing him speak and meeting with him last week, I have to say I'm impressed. He's not the used car salesman that Mark was, nor the fiery bitch that Carli was. He's kind of a geek, and a definite software nerd. Not only that, he genuinely impressed me. He's sharp and capable without being slimy. And unlike most Germans, he appears to have had his sense of humor reinstalled.

    Moreover, he's SMART about the tech HP sells, and why people buy it in a way that Mark never was.

    And I'll take that.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 04, 2010 @10:15AM (#34124598)

    Lets see how this goes.

    Before when a small UK company didn't turn up to court, they were ruled against by default, under the assumption that whatever the prosecution said about them was uncontested.

    Here will the CEO of a big company be likewise assumed guilty?

  • I'm confused (Score:4, Interesting)

    by somaTh (1154199) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @10:15AM (#34124604) Journal
    How is HP not guilty of obstruction of justice?

    Like I really need to say it, but here it is anyway: IANAL.
  • Re:How about... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 04, 2010 @10:18AM (#34124626)

    Glad you like him. We had him for too short a time I think. I totally agree with your assessment of him as a person. The only downside that I remember is that he has a small case of foot-in-mouth disease. About 1 in every 4 meetings he would say something that I'm sure made the PR people cringe. On the up side, it makes listening to his keynotes and Q&A more interesting.

  • Re:I'm confused (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 04, 2010 @11:33AM (#34125678)

    He is the CEO of an american multinational, he has spent most of his life in Belgium and Germany. I would imagine his only reasons to set foot on US soil are business meetings and site visits. Considering the extent of HPs international holdings and operations, he need never visit the nation during his tenure as chief executive. Unless you fancy trying to extradite a witness, it's probably better for Oracle just to "let it go". ... background: I worked for a US multinational corp for a decade and avoided having to submit to the indignity of US border controls.

  • by Comrade Ogilvy (1719488) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @11:55AM (#34126012)
    From TFA:

    "Oracle had ample opportunity to question Leo during his sworn deposition in October 2008 and chose not to include him as a live trial witness until he was named CEO of HP," an HP spokesperson said in a statement. "Given Leo's limited knowledge of and role in the matter, Oracle's last-minute effort to require him to appear live at trial is no more than an effort to harass him and interfere with his duties and responsibilities as HP's CEO."

    Of course, HP may be pulling the wool over our eyes. But if it was not obvious in 2008 and 2009 that live testimony would be likely necessary, then it is difficult to believe that he is so important to the suit here in late 2010.

  • by Svartalf (2997) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @03:25PM (#34129134) Homepage

    Ahh... But they have to serve him WITHIN the Court's jurisdiction, else it's not proper service and carries no force of law. It's not QUITE as simple as you're making it out to be. If they don't serve him within the confines of his jurisdiction and he's off on legit company business (which he is, actually) they can't serve him and when the clock on their ability to serve the subpoena runs out they've got to try for it again- and I'll bet good money they don't have the time to do it after the clock runs out on them this go-round.

"An entire fraternity of strapping Wall-Street-bound youth. Hell - this is going to be a blood bath!" -- Post Bros. Comics