Larry Ellison Rips HP Board a New One

theodp writes "No stranger himself to sexual harassment allegations, Oracle CEO Larry Ellison has denounced HP's directors for forcing the resignation of HP CEO Mark Hurd. 'The HP board just made the worst personnel decision since the idiots on the Apple board fired Steve Jobs many years ago,' Ellison wrote. For now, it seems that Rupert Murdoch is also standing by Hurd, who sits on News Corp's Board of Directors and its Corporate Governance Committee. Less likely to survive the scandal is Hurd's relationship with HP General Counsel Mike Holston, who accepted Hurd's signed separation agreement after leading an investigation into Hurd's actions, which Holston told the NY Times 'showed a profound lack of judgment.' Quite a change from just last year, when Hurd and Holston teamed up to get their daughters' elite prep school a state-of-the-art HP Data Center."

Comments

Question:

[Pojut]

Does anyone know if there is hard evidence (heh) proving this guy's guilt? It would be a real shame for this to be a false accusation that destroys a man's career...

Re:Question:

[mandark1967]

My understanding, though I've not read about the case in depth, is that he was accused, he admitted to it, and the accuser had already worked out a resolution, then the crap hit the fan, so to speak.

Re:Question:

[TrisexualPuppy]

According to one of my old classmates who works at HP, they've either been keeping everything really quiet, or there is no evidence. He is betting on the latter. This may just be a case of slander/libel. It does not take much for a woman to accuse a man of a crime that he did not commit and get him into heaps of trouble for it.

Happened to me in the 90s and on a much smaller scale. I was accused of groping a woman, and when the cop arrived, she couldn't even keep her story straight. The cop tried to convince her how to best make up her story in front of my face. I was arrested. When we went to court, I provided microcassette audio and a transcript of what had happened. Cop was fired, and they tried the woman for perjury. Still made my life a nightmare.

Re:Question:

[WrongSizeGlass]

The 'accuser' has backed off things quite a bit, including saying they never had a sexual relationship ... all this after she received a settlement. That's why they call it 'hush money'.

Re:Question:

[Splab]

Don't feel too bad, he is getting a golden handshake in the tune of $150 million at least. (They are still working on some stock options and HP just came out with a nice profit)

Re:Question:

[Anonymous Coward]

From the *OTHER* sd article 'the investigation did uncover other misconduct'. Meaning that this was false but what the hell are you doing over here...

More than likely it was a case of 'we do not like you anymore you should move on'. Frankly would you want to keep working in an environment like that? It works for people like Jobs and Elison because they are in charge. This fellow was while 'high up' was not 100% in charge.

Re:Question:

[NevarMore]

Does anyone know if there is hard evidence (heh) proving this guy's guilt? It would be a real shame for this to be a false accusation that destroys a man's career...

Oh yes it would be just *awful* if this poor man had to retire on $11.6 million in cash and $40-50 million in HP stock.

I agree with your basic premise, not guilty means that he should be made whole after this mess is sorted out. This "resignation" is there to make problems for HP go away whether or not Hurd actually did anything. However I find it VERY hard to feel bad for someone that makes over 1000 times what the average middle class salaried worker makes. I'm pretty sure he can retire comfortably and his kids won't even really have to work ever again either.

Re:Question:

[elrous0]

More common than most people realize. And thanks to feminists running around claiming that no woman has ever lied about being raped or sexually harassed, there is pretty much a presumption of guilt now for any such accusation, even if it's in the midst of a nasty divorce/custody case or if the victim has a clear financial gain in making an accusation. Just look at how those poor bastards in the Duke Lacrosse case were publicly crucified by the likes of Gloria Alred and Nancy Grace (who never even had the decency to apologize after the case fell apart). Without decent attorneys, those guys would probably be in prison now (instead of the piece-of-shit prosecutor who railroaded them for his own political gain).

Re:Question:

[Austerity Empowers]

Pretty sure it would be hard to live up "undisclosed payments" from your company to a "marketing consultant" with which you had a "close personal relationship". Most of us employees want to oust our bosses over far less.

Re:Question:

[nedlohs]

Today you'd get thrown in jail for making that recording.

Re:Question:

[Mongoose Disciple]

To be fair, at one point it was pretty standard to put the accuser in a case like that more on trial than the accused.

Things have swung too far in the opposite direction, now, but you have to understand these things in context -- society's trying to find an appropriate equilibrium.

Re:Question:

[TrisexualPuppy]

Society will never find equilibrium. It's like the oscillatory nature of everything else in existence. Swing one way, swing the other, and never remain static. It's a simple model that applies to nearly everything.

Re:Question:

[mlts]

Society never finds equilibrium. It merely heads to the state with the lowest energy and the highest entropy.

Re:Question:

[mark72005]

Exactly - there's always a presumption of guilt for the man.

I'd hate to be a celebrity or some kind of professional athlete in this respect. You would think they'd all be afraid to talk with strangers in public or date women innocently, for fear of those people all looking for a payday any way they could get it.

Re:Question:

[AnonymousClown]

Without decent attorneys, those guys would probably be in prison now (instead of the piece-of-shit prosecutor who railroaded them for his own political gain).

That highlights the importance of money in getting justice. Those kids had very well-to-do parents that were able to launch a very effective legal and PR counter attack - and I'm sure they were also politically connected too.

For the rest of us, we'd have to take a "deal" (plead guilty to lesser but no less BS charges) from the prosecutor in order to get it over with so that we not only don't go to jail over the BS charges but also not be burdened with legal bills for the rest of our lives.

Justice seems to only apply to the rich these days.

Re:Question:

[elrous0]

I remember reading a while back about a NBA or NFL training seminar they required for new ballplayers. One of the topics they covered was just that, the dangers of letting a "groupie" get you alone (and what it could cost you if they were interested in more than just sleeping with a celebrity). Probably should be a required class for new rock stars too.

Re:Question:

[mcgrew]

It's a good thing you weren't in Illinois. Taping it with a microcassette without their knowledge is a felony here. But then, this IS Illinois, where the powerful want to be shielded from their lies.

Re:Question:

[ground.zero.612]

However I find it VERY hard to feel bad for someone that makes over 1000 times what the average middle class salaried worker makes.

Why? Are you a bigot toward people with better advantage in life than yourself? Perhaps you are jealous? Why does ones monetary worth make on iota of difference in your ability to empathize; feel human compassion? He is no Bernie Madoff or Tom Petters...

Re:Question:

[larry bagina]

rumor I heard is that he ripped her a new one. Remember guys, if a girl is bent over, ass up in the air, pussy dripping wet and you "accidentally" stick it in her pooper, it's rape. A couple inches is the difference between consentual sex and criminal charges. So always ask first!

Re:Question:

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG! how will he survive??

Can we set up a Paypal donation fund for him?

such a travesty... he's pennyless now. How can we expect a spoiled rich asshole to put his pants on without at least 2 servants?

Re:Question:

[NevarMore]

Oh I'm very jealous. I'd like to know what to put in my contracts so that I get a bonus when I resign.

I do agree with the parent's original premise that no one should be treated as a criminal until proven guilty of a crime. Its just really hard to feel sorry for someone who makes more than I will in my working career just for quitting his job.

This isn't exactly the same as the manager that had his reputation ruined because of planted kiddie porn, but it is in the same vein.

Re:Question:

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly - there's always a presumption of guilt for the man.

And many people will accuse a raped woman of bringing it on themselves and inviting the rape.

Re:Question:

[Dishevel]

Rock groupies are much more understanding. :)

Re:Question:

[Anonymous Coward]

This will all go away once we invent a virtual reality sex simulation even 50% as good as the real thing. Or a sex bot.

And japan is working hard (ha) on both those.

Women will lose all the sexual control they have enjoyed and abused for the last 40 years.

Virtual 10 beats the crap out of a real 7 that might falsely charge you with rape or sexual harassment because shes a bitch.

Go go gadget hooker!

Of course... that might be the end of the human race... But i'm ok with that too.

Re:Question:

[elrous0]

Seriously, when is the last time you ever heard anyone do that publicly? A lot of feminists claim this to be the case, and it's true that it might have once been more acceptable (and it was NEVER fully acceptable, BTW). But no one would dare say this sort of thing anymore today (certainly not openly, and even only reluctantly in private). It *is* quite acceptable to assume that an accused rapist is guilty and make public statements raking him (or her, for that matter) over the coals, long before they've been found guilty or even before most of the facts are known. But anyone openly blaming the accuser in a case like this today (no matter how questionable his/her credibility) would be burned at the stake.

Re:Question:

[cgenman]

http://chattahbox.com/business/2010/08/09/hps-sexual-harassment-accuser-jodie-fisher-skin-flick-actress/
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinvestor/corporatenews/2010-08-06-hp-ceo-hurd-resigns_N.htm

I've only been reading a little bit from news sources, but it sounds like they were friends outside of work, and he wanted to sleep with her. She didn't want to sleep with him, and there wasn't any repercussions. Whatever happened, they dealt with it, and it sounds like they don't bear each other ill will. The ethics violations he and the board refer to, are officially accounting irregularities he used to cover up his time with this woman.

It's hard to tell from the little bit we know about the case, but it sounds pretty normal. Are people in companies simply never supposed to be attracted to each other? If you spend 16 hours a day at work, which becomes the drive of your life and your social circle, are you to avoid any personal emotional contact at all? There are real cases of people abusing positions of power to force people to have sex with them or face termination. While we don't know all of the details, this sounds like a doofy unrequited interoffice romance. That really should not be enough to fire someone.

Re:Question:

[__aasqbs9791]

Yeah, they wait many years before announcing they had a love-child. I wonder why there's that discrepancy between the two professions?

Re:Question:

[timeOday]

He doesn't even have to retire - just accept the $50e6 windfall and move on to another similar position. With friends like Ellison and Murdoch (and those are just the ones who've publicly taken his side) there will be a big bidding war for him to take the reigns of the next company - not unlikely someplace many slashdotters work :)

Re:Question:

[ground.zero.612]

Oh I'm very jealous. I'd like to know what to put in my contracts so that I get a bonus when I resign.

I do agree with the parent's original premise that no one should be treated as a criminal until proven guilty of a crime. Its just really hard to feel sorry for someone who makes more than I will in my working career just for quitting his job.

This isn't exactly the same as the manager that had his reputation ruined because of planted kiddie porn, but it is in the same vein.

I think you are misled in thinking that he received a bonus for his resignation. Either that, or you believe that the contracts that established ownership of his stock options should, for whatever your reasoning, be null and void.

I am getting a sense of entitlement coming from you. In the form of jealously and resentment towards those who find more success than yourself. The reason you find it hard to empathize with your fellow man is that you feel entitled to his successes. Not only have you made that clear, but you've also managed to place yourself on a pedestal above Hurd such that you can explain away your statements as taking the Moral Highground.

Re:Question:

[Lunix Nutcase]

Seriously, when is the last time you ever heard anyone do that publicly?

Less than a month? You can easily find numerous references not just from this year but from last of politicians and posters on the internet talking about how a woman invited raped on themselves. Then just take a trip to the Islamic world and any rape is assumed to be the woman's fault and that she invited it.

A lot of feminists claim this to be the case, and it's true that it might have once been more acceptable (and it was NEVER fully acceptable, BTW). But no one would dare say this sort of thing anymore today (certainly not openly, and even only reluctantly in private).

And yet despite this assertion it's trivially easy to do a google search and find people making public statements that say this exactly.

Re:Question:

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, what a load of pure BS.

First off, please point out a "feminist" claiming that no woman has ever lied about being raped or sexually harassed. I doubt you can find even one, and there certainly aren't hordes of them out there. Nancy Grace is hardly a representative of feminism, and even she has never said such an absurd thing. Of course, "feminists" make a great political target.

What happened at Duke was of course a travesty and farce combined, but it's hardly a reflection on either feminism or the validity of rape claims. It's one incident, and the fault for it lies in the perpetrator of the fraud, the prosecutor, and media parasites like Nancy Grace. On the other hand, my girlfriend was brutally raped by a coworker, and no one did a damn thing about it. The police barely bother to investigate and her company retaliated against her when she reported it. I'm willing to bet that situation happens at least as often, if not more, than the reverse.

But, oh! You got a flamebait mod! After spouting a bunch of idiotic nonsense! Clearly there's a conspiracy of women out to get you.

Re:Question:

[logjon]

Being fair is not the same as being an apologist, and you are acting like the latter.

Re:Question:

[elrous0]

I'm not talking about the Islamic world, I'm talking about the modern world. I'm sure you can find numerous references to Muslims claiming that Jinns have possessed their goats to produce bad milk too. That hardly makes the comments of those hillbilly Koran-thumpers mainstream.

But if you can produce mainstream commentators (and not just nutcases on message boards or tin-foil-hat blogs shooting their mouths off in anonymity) in the western world saying any such thing, then knock yourself out. The only time I've ever heard the SLIGHTEST criticism of an accuser was in the Duke case (and that only came much later, after it became abundantly clear she was a complete nutcase) and in the Kobe Bryant case (and only because there were some very suspicious circumstances there, and even then it was mostly only pro-Kobe fans and sports writers that dared questioned her story).

Re:Question:

[afabbro]

The 'accuser' has backed off things quite a bit, including saying they never had a sexual relationship ... all this after she received a settlement. That's why they call it 'hush money'.

I think you're mischaracterizing things. She never said they had a sexual relationship and Hurd never said they did. She said he harassed her. HP fired Hurd because he fraudulently expense'd $20,000 in gifts, visits, etc. to pursue the relationship.

Two points:

• The fact that he spent $20,000 on trips, visits, and gifts for a woman and lied about it is pretty much proof that he was pursuing her. If it had all been legitimate business meetings, he wouldn't have had to lie.
• More importantly, fraudently expensing money is a sure way to get fired at any level. Hurd was just dumb. In every big company I've worked in, the culture has always been that if you steal, you're out, and the amount doesn't really matter.

Re:Question:

[Anonymous Coward]

He stole $20,000 from his employer. If I stole even 1% of that much, I'd be marched out into a waiting police cruiser, not given my retirement options.

Re:Question:

[David Greene]

Exactly - there's always a presumption of guilt for the man.

False. I know people who have been raped and had their employer/school/etc. do whatever it took to cover it up. I've know prosecutors to refuse to prosecute because of the position/importance of said institution in the community.

Re:Question:

[Dog-Cow]

Why should anyone feel sorry for him? Even Gates has no reason, and he's certainly not going to be jealous. The guy stole. He was fired. There's no reason to emphasize. On the other hand, there's good reason to be jealous of someone who can commit a crime and come out ahead by several million dollars.

Re:Question:

[David Greene]

Thank you. I'm glad some people are willing to stand up for what's right.

Re:Question:

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing the prosecution never got ahold of the fact that you go by "Trisexual Puppy."

Re:Question:

[elrous0]

First off, please point out a "feminist" claiming that no woman has ever lied about being raped or sexually harassed.

Here is a nice essay on that very subject.

Re:Question:

[nomadic]

The cop tried to convince her how to best make up her story in front of my face. I was arrested. When we went to court, I provided microcassette audio and a transcript of what had happened. Cop was fired, and they tried the woman for perjury. Still made my life a nightmare.

Wow I know you doubtless want to keep your privacy here, but I'd love to hear the details about that.

Re:Question:

[nomadic]

However I find it VERY hard to feel bad for someone that makes over 1000 times what the average middle class salaried worker makes. I'm pretty sure he can retire comfortably and his kids won't even really have to work ever again either.

Also hard to feel bad for someone who is taking those bonuses after firing so many employees and cutting the salaries of the remainder.

Re:Question:

[drainbramage]

Try that today and you'll get an additional charge of illegally recording.

Re:Question:

[HermMunster]

What was he accused of? And don't say sexual harassment. That doesn't fly. He had to actually commit an act that is in violation of laws, and/or company policy.

I've seen this happen many times in business where someone is accused and the accusation is all that is needed, even if the incident is a minor infraction.

Hurd wasn't let go for a sexual harassment claim. He wasn't let go for any real legal issue with padding the expense account for private use. He wasn't let go for his non-relationship "wish he had relationship". Even the gal making the claim seemed downright surprised that he was let go.

My guess is that after some time in a growing relationship he touched her in a seemingly appropriate inappropriate manner (based on her perspective) probably during a business dinner. He was probably using his position at HP in order to get closer to her by having her out on various dinners at very expensive places.

What happens in the field stays in the field. That's an old saying. I pretty much think that it was disregarded.

HP likely fired him because of some internal conflict. The woman taking over made this out as if there was this massive rile ongoing between him and the vision of HP. She publicly made statements about him that are supposed to be kept internal for privacy reasons. If Hurd were to sue he'd win because they are legally bound to keep private the reasons for his seperation until something is proven. On their SEC filings they can claim various things that would still be onpoint but not too revealing and they'd remain legal.

I agree with Ellison. This was a huge fuck up. Considering these types of things happen all the time, considering how much money Hurd makes by leaving, and considering he covered himself well by gaining support of others and dealing with this woman in a prompt manner, and offering to pay back any suspect expenses, he should go on to a full career still, with $20 million in the bank.

I personally think something was happening internally and ever since the reporter spy scandal they've had various witch hunts. Who knows how much more disruptive those hunts have been to their success over the past year.

Re:Question:

[PitaBred]

Depends on the state. I'd get out of Massachusetts while the getting was good.

Re:Question:

[the_B0fh]

please! there's only so many bugati veyrons and multi-million dollar homes you can buy with $11mil cash and $40mil stock. Think of the children!

Re:Question:

[capnchicken]

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1943

Re:Question:

[Your.Master]

The Islamic world wasn't the whole of his examples, just an afterthought thrown in there.

Look at any Digg story about rape. Or any article that drifts into whether abortion should be legal in cases of rape.

Then there are stories like this http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10211/1076338-455.stm where every mention of rape is assumed to actually be consensual sex (in other words, she asked for it).

Or these pamphlets that aim to spread the message everywhere http://jezebel.com/5482688/you-make-men-want-to-be-sinful-blaming-the-victim-religious-pamphlet-edition

Or http://jezebel.com/5478360/she-knew-what-would-happen-if-she-started-drinking-blaming-the-victim-princeton-edition

This shows that it isn't just a small nutball collective: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1251040/Rape-Its-fault-victims-say-50-women.html?ITO=1490&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+dailymail/home+(Home+|+Mail+Online)

The boys aren't to blame because she drank a bit: http://current.com/1db6i4c

Here's what rapists think about it: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/04/15/why-dont-we-accept-victim-blaming-from-rapists/

There are a whole host of weirder cases, too, that imply that rape victims actually gave consent. Remember how Whoopi Goldberg ranting about how Roman Polanski's drugging and raping an unconscious child wasn't really rape? I'm not sure what she was getting at, but if it wasn't rape then it stands to reason that Whoopi thought something about the unconscious, drugged girl gave consent to Polanski.

But if you can produce mainstream commentators...

You are moving goalposts and putting them someplace strange and unnecessary. This isn't about political commentators blaming the victim, it's about members of the public blaming the victim, all the time. Fair enough that you can find a lone person with an insane definition of anything, but this is hardly a rare viewpoint.

Re:Question:

[frosty_tsm]

To be fair, at one point it was pretty standard to put the accuser in a case like that more on trial than the accused.

Things have swung too far in the opposite direction, now, but you have to understand these things in context -- society's trying to find an appropriate equilibrium.

I was thinking about something related to this the other day. If a guy sleeps with a drunk girl, he can be charged with rape. If a girl sleeps with a drunk guy, she never would be. If a drunk guy sleeps with a drunk girl, she can claim she was unable to give consent. But where does that leave the drunk guy (who wasn't able to... ask for consent?).

Something is off about the last example, but I haven't narrow it down yet.

Re:Question:

[ground.zero.612]

There's no reason to emphasize.

Ok, well as long as we agree that it's in human nature to empathize with other humans...

Re:Question:

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not blaming the accuser to put them on trial, its the fucking point of presumption of innocence.

Re:Question:

[the phantom]

Actually, a drunk man who has sex with a sober woman could press rape charges. However, this assumes that (a) upon waking, the man feels that he has been wronged and (b) the man actually chooses to press rape charges. We live in a society that assumes that men want to have sex with women, no matter their state of mind, and that further presumes that a man cannot be raped by a woman, and any man that does make such a claim is a pussy. So it is understandable that so few cases are prosecuted.

Re:Question:

[Kjella]

there is pretty much a presumption of guilt now for any such accusation, even if it's in the midst of a nasty divorce/custody case or if the victim has a clear financial gain in making an accusation.

I think the point is that divorce and custody cases must be settled, you can't go back to where you were. That false accusations happen in nasty divorce/custody cases is mixed with many real events leading to nasty divorce/custody cases, the timing doesn't make it less credible. Imagine that you're a parent that suspects your child has been abused somehow, but you can't get any clear answers on what or who and no hard evidence only sensing abrupt changes in behavior, or even if you do they're so unclear and inconsistent you don't think they'll hold up in criminal court. Fortunately parents don't need that and can act if they think their child has possibly or probably been abused. As damn well they should.

In the marriage you can become a guardian hawk looking after your children all the time, but after a divorce you can't. You'll have to fully hand over custody of the children part of the time, even if it's just for a weekend. Would you let them go without a fight, even if you knew you don't have proof? Hell no. You'd make desperate accusations in the hope that somehow they'll stick, and if they don't at least you did everything possible to let people know. Trying to prosecute "groundless accusations" harder would quite often lead to other miscarriages of justice, unfortunately it's pretty hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it didn't happen too. But you have to deal with all the situations that lie in the middle somehow.

Imagine you knew as a fact that the parent in front of you is with 50% probability abusive. If you had ten such cases, what would you pick? Five cases of children being wrongfully taken from their parents or five children sent to homes you had good reason to suspect was abusive? After all 50% is massively higher than your average home, and even if CPS are alerted they have the same dilemma of pestering innocents versus uncovering disguised abuse. Victims have after all often been manipulated or threatened into silence and don't openly admit to being abused. Would is matter if it was 80%? 20%? 1%? Somewhere we draw the line, and there's no good pretending that we should have some divine insight and always know and not talk of probabilities. Some of these cases we will get wrong, it's only a question of what wrongs matter more.

Re:Question:

[sjames]

Yes, so society should be well aware of the dangers of an unbalanced approach but went and jumped directly from putting the victim on trial to presuming the accused to be guilty anyway.

Give it a few more years and we'll be back to putting the victim on trial. Then someone will say "To be fair, at one point it was pretty standard to presume the accused was guilty."...

Re:Question:

[jadavis]

To be fair, at one point it was pretty standard to put the accuser in a case like that more on trial than the accused.

When it's one person's word against another person's word, then the presumption of innocence should prevail. Once a trial has begun, a person has a right to question their accuser (that's in the Constitution).

If there is no hard evidence, then the prosecutor shouldn't drag the victim through the whole process, even if they are really a victim. It doesn't help anyone.

Yes, it sucks to let criminals go free.

But it sucks more to allow one group of people (in this case, women) to put anyone from another group (in this case, men) into prison by simply lying.

society's trying to find an appropriate equilibrium.

Oh, so it's society's fault?

No. It's the fault of the witnesses who lie and the prosecutors who press charges when there is no corroborating evidence. And both should go to jail.

Re:Question:

[sjames]

That was to some degree true in the U.S. many years ago. Nobody here seems to be advocating a return to that, just that we actually make the system work as the Constitution calls for. A fair trial and presumption of innocence for the accused. That doesn't by any means require putting the victim on trial.

Re:Question:

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, please point out a "feminist" claiming that no woman has ever lied about being raped or sexually harassed.

Here is a nice essay on that very subject.

Did you actually read that article? My guess is that either a) you did, but you're counting on the fact that most people here won't, or b) you didn't and just assume it supports your claim. It doesn't.

The Salon article, baring any other criticisms I might make about it, provides some evidence that there is a significant number of false rape claims. It does not, however, provide any evidence of a vast feminist conspiracy to propagate the notion that no woman has ever lied about being raped. The author does seem to assume such a conspiracy at times, but she never provides any evidence of its existence. The closest she gets is this paragraph:

All too often, however, feminist rhetoric merely replaced the old stereotypes that viewed most rape complainants as scorned women or sex-crazed neurotics with an equally simplistic cliché: "Women don't lie about rape." Legal theorist Catharine MacKinnon asserts that "feminism is built on believing women's accounts of sexual use and abuse by men." Some colleges with speech codes have equated talk of false rape allegations with "discriminatory harassment." Activists may even refuse to believe "victims" who admit that they lied, suggesting that women recant out of fear or denial, and many bristle when the media publicize stories of falsely accused men.

An out-of-context quote advocating that we default to belief in women's reports of rape is quite different from stating that no woman has ever lied about it. And it's amusing to think that someone actually believes Catharine MacKinnon has extensive influence over society.

Re:Question:

[HermMunster]

The same goes for restraining orders. All you have to do is make an accusation and you can get a temporary one served. That can and does ruin reputations. I understand from a Judge's point of view. He has to protect those who might actually be harmed by someone. But if you read restraining order ordinances you can be accused for a pattern of behavior. That pattern consists of 2 instances or more. Not 5 not 10, but two.

If the restraining order request is dropped you still have to go to court over it and you probably have to deal with the total lack of knowledge about the issue by the Judge while they pet and fawn the person making the claim. If it turns out the person lied to get the restraining order there's very little you can do in return. In most cases when the person files the request for a restraining order the person is sent back by the court clerk indicating that more things need to be added in order to show it. The more vague they are in their claims the easier it is to get out of it if the order is dropped.

Most men falsely accused will be adults and let it go, but they don't understand that it is now on their record. The humuliation factor is pretty high to. Men tend to feel humiliated at being accused. Two incidents is nothing.

A restraining order is meant to help protect people from those that would do them harm, and it is supposed to be actual and substantial, yet it is so easily abused because claims resulting in a restraining order can be so subjective.

The bottom line is this; claims can be more harmful than the actual act itself. You can harm someone's life by making such claims. There are people that get off on it and there are people that are totally confused about life that will pursue this sort of thing on a whim because they are either evil or abusive themselves or are confused as to the purpose behind the laws.

It's not fair and someone always gets hurt. Hurd is hurting because of this. His reputation has been harmed. His career is in jeopardy. His acting replacement has rubbed his nose in it by making unsubstantiated probably inflated or made up claims about his vision vs. HPs.

Re:Question:

[Hatta]

To be fair, at one point it was pretty standard to put the accuser in a case like that more on trial than the accused.

What's wrong with that? If you're talking about depriving a man of several years, if not decades, of his life, potentially subjecting him to rape in prison, and branding him for life after his release, shouldn't we be damn sure the accuser has their story straight?

Re:Question:

[VolciMaster]

Does anyone know if there is hard evidence (heh) proving this guy's guilt? It would be a real shame for this to be a false accusation that destroys a man's career...

Actually, it was shown the harassment charges were invalid.

The issue he resigned over was improperly filing expense reports, and expensing invalid items.

Re:Question:

[frosty_tsm]

All good points, but what about the 3rd case where neither are able to give consent? Does the lack of ability to give consent mean they also aren't capable of seeing consent can't be given by the other? When both were drunk, can a man counter-charge rape on the girl if the girl charges rape against him?

Philosophically, this is a more interesting scenario.

Re:Question:

[computational super]

"Putting the accuser on trial" is feminist double-speak for "suggesting, no matter how delicately, that it might have been consensual and that she might be lying." In other words, you're doing EXACTLY what elrous0 suggests is the fundamental problem here.

Re:Question:

[BlackSnake112]

Justice seems to only apply to the rich these days.

I would say that getting off with little or no punishment applies to the rich.

Justice is supposed to be blind and applied to all equally. Today's legal system has proven that wrong.

Re:Question:

[computational super]

You mean, you were there, and you personally saw it happen? If not, then all you know is that an accusation was made... and the employer/school/etc. did whatever it took to cover it up. In other words, you're doing EXACTLY what he said the problem is, which explains why the employer/school/etc. has to do whatever it takes to cover it up - because you (and 75% of the rest of the world) immediately presume guilt.

Re:Question:

[Mongoose Disciple]

No, it means exactly what I wrote. I'm not a feminist.

It's not productive to decide what my position is and then read what I wrote through that prism. Legally, we essentially put people on trial for accusing someone else of wrongdoing all the time in ways that don't have a thing to do with gender -- corporate whistleblowers, for example.

Re:Question:

[jafiwam]

Exactly - there's always a presumption of guilt for the man.

And many people will accuse a raped woman of bringing it on themselves and inviting the rape.

No, no they don't. The problem is you, Mrs. Anonymous Coward are the shrill feminist type that fails to make the distinction between:

Blame for the rape placed on the woman "asking for it"

And:

Frank discussion of the risks that were being taken at the time, that were essential or contributing components to the situation; which were also OPTIONAL.

For example; a person gets too drunk to realize getting a ride home from the four nice men that they met at the bar while in a foreign city isn't a good idea. Getting drunk: optional. Doing it in a foreign city: optional, going to the foreign city: optional. etc.

Yes, rape is bad, and the four nice men could have simply not violently violated all the orifices they did, but getting stinking drunk in a foreign city was STILL a necessary condition for the problem. People talk about THAT. That's not "blaming the victim" that's "learning from some dumbass' mistake".

Another example, pointing a loaded gun at one's face. We all laugh and point when some dumbass Darwins himself doing that. Yes, guns are dangerous and it sucks to get shot, but, there is a strong element of the victim's own behavior that set up the situation.

You, little twat ass feminists UTTERLY FAIL TO MAKE THAT FUCKING DISTINCTION. Just too stupid, maybe. I dunno.

So, discussion of risks gets marked down as "blame" when it is not that, it's discussion of risks.

Discussion of risks is a really good way to make things better. So it will be everywhere. But it's not labeled like that. It's mis-labeled as blame, when it is not.

You twats are not helping.

Re:Question:

[alexo]

Cop was fired

What planet did that happen on?

Re:Question:

[jafiwam]

Justice seems to only apply to the rich these days.

I would say that getting off with little or no punishment applies to the rich.

Justice is supposed to be blind and applied to all equally. Today's legal system has proven that wrong.

The legal system has NEVER done what the theory says it does on that aspect.

It probably never will, until we are ruled by the great Iron Masters the Machines!!!

Re:Question:

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

All good points, but what about the 3rd case where neither are able to give consent? Does the lack of ability to give consent mean they also aren't capable of seeing consent can't be given by the other? When both were drunk, can a man counter-charge rape on the girl if the girl charges rape against him?

There are several problems with this whole thread.

First, rape of drunk women doesn't normally about mean that the woman is a bit tipsy. Rather, it's that the woman is passed out or nearly so--very often from drinks that were given to her by the perpetrator or his friends when she was already very drunk (highly slurred speech, seriously impaired coordination), with the intent to make her compliant.

Second, no matter how drunk he may have been, a man can't seriously claim that he did not consent to sex if he, under no coercion to do so, climbs on top of an unconscious woman, spreads her legs apart and penetrates her. The actions show a deliberate choice to rape the woman.

Philosophically, this is a more interesting scenario.

Criminologically or morally, however, it's bullshit, because it's a contrived scenario that's departing from the common case, which remains systematically unpunished.

Re:Question:

[ryanov]

This is some pretty unimpressive work on your part. You do realize that part of the reason it got to be this way is rape spent such a long time being a crime that you almost couldn't get someone convicted for. Women having real rights is still relatively new in our history, so I think it behooves us to not act like "problem solved" and go back to suspecting women are lying when they call rape. People lie all the time about all sorts of things. Hell, people lie and say "I didn't rape anyone." But to suggest that the way our judicial system is set up now is that a woman can go in and lie about rape and put someone in jail is false, as is trying to suggest that that's actually happening on any kind of noteworthy basis.

Re:Question:

[ryanov]

I'm sure that you know there's a difference between vetting the plaintiff's story and turning the plaintiff into a defendant.

Re:Question:

[ryanov]

And suggesting that women routinely lie about rape and that it is some sort of feminist plot is "sexist asshole speak" for... umm... "I'm a sexist asshole."

I guess it's no surprise that men on Slashdot don't seem to have any human compassion for real live women, not having ever seen one up close.

(no, I'm not female, stand back please)

Re:Question:

[ryanov]

All over this message board in this article. I don't know how "public" that is, but it's only because people are embarrassed, not because they don't think it (obviously, from reading these posts).

Re:Question:

[ryanov]

Wow, posting with his real username no less.

So, apparently, if a woman is attractive, she should stay in her home. I mean, rape is illegal and all of that, but she doesn't have to go outside and risk getting raped, so it's her choice. And, no, no one would say she was asking for it if she left her house looking good... but... I mean... what did she expect to have happen?

No, no one blames the victim anymore.

I personally enjoy going out and drinking too much in foreign cities. Should I expect to be raped?

Re:Question:

[ryanov]

One out of every 6 women in America has been raped or had an attempted rape. If any of them will get close to you (maybe a family member), why don't you ask them what sort of easy time they had getting it prosecuted, if they decided to subject themselves to that.

Oh, and no, I guess it's not blaming the victim either to make the leap from "know people who have been raped" to "did you actually see it happen? I rest my case." Wow.

Re:Question:

[ryanov]

I really can't even believe the shit I've been reading here, David. Nice to know someone else has a brain (and a 3 digit ID to boot).

Re:Question:

[ryanov]

It's very hard to amass that money/get to a position like that without stepping on a ton of people along the way. You know what the say about rich men and heaven. I'm not sure if they're saying that the type to get rich is the type not to go, or that money corrupts. Either way, yeah, I'm skeptical of millionaires. For one, how do you keep that much money at home when you know how many people are suffering? How do you vote/lobby as so many do for lower taxes for the rich? I personally could not, and I guess that's one reason I'll always be living on a normal-person wage.

Oh, and another reason: if you make 1000 times what the average middle class worker makes, you're alright when you're let go. I could make it 6 months without dipping into retirement, probably. If you can get fired from your job and say "eh, I'll go out on my sailboat for awhile" it's a very different experience, I'd say, even if it were embarrassing.

Re:Question:

[elrous0]

So you're fighting bigotry with even meaner-spirited bigotry?

Re:Question:

[elrous0]

And 3 out of every 5 statistics is made up. Yes, real rapes happen. And yes, real false accusations happen too. The U.S. justice system presumes innocence. It should not fall on someone to prove they DIDN'T commit a crime just because it's their word against someone else's, with no other evidence against them.

Re:Question:

[elrous0]

Don't be daft. No one deserves to be raped, or robbed, or shot, etc. But there is a big difference between saying that and pretending that you are absolutely helpless and that such crimes always occur completely at random. I know there are certain neighborhoods where I'm MUCH more likely to get robbed. Now, sure, I should be able to walk down the street counting hundred dollar bills in such a neighborhood at 2 am and not get robbed. My actions don't EXCUSE the criminals who might rob me. But that doesn't mean that my own behavior wasn't foolish, or that it had absolutely no influence on the crime. Saying that my stupid behavior didn't contribute ANYTHING to my robbery is just fucking stupid. It wouldn't make it any less a robbery, but that's very different that saying that I bear no responsibility for my own foolish actions.

Re:Question:

[Anonymous Coward]

For example; a person gets too drunk to realize getting a ride home from the four nice men that they met at the bar while in a foreign city isn't a good idea. Getting drunk: optional. Doing it in a foreign city: optional, going to the foreign city: optional. etc.

All of those things put the victim in a bad situation. None of those things forced the "four nice men" to choose (optional) to rape her. Personal accountability applies to everyone in this situation. She may have done something stupid, but they did something illegal and immoral.

That's not "blaming the victim" that's "learning from some dumbass' mistake".

But that's not what happens. Maybe you look at it from a purely academic perspective in order to learn from mistakes, but the reality that has played out time and time again is that the victim is blamed for "making" the men rape them. Why would these elements even be brought up in a trial by the defense, if not to paint the victim as the cause of her own victimization? This is precisely why rape shield laws came into effect. BECAUSE THIS HAPPENS IN THE REAL WORLD ALL THE TIME.

And just because rape shield laws prevent this discussion from occurring in the courtroom (with certain exceptions), doesn't magically change the reality of how rape victims are perceived.

Re:Question:

[Rary]

To be fair, at one point it was pretty standard to put the accuser in a case like that more on trial than the accused.

What's wrong with that? If you're talking about depriving a man of several years, if not decades, of his life, potentially subjecting him to rape in prison, and branding him for life after his release, shouldn't we be damn sure the accuser has their story straight?

Defendants on trial for other crimes seem to be quite capable of being "damn sure the accuser has their story straight" without actually turning the whole thing around and blaming the accuser for bringing the crime on themselves.

Re:Question:

[frosty_tsm]

If the criteria is the woman is near or completely unconscious, your points are dead on.

But that's not the criteria discussed back when I was on campus. It was about drunk, conscious, girls that may or may not have been acting flirty but were considered unable to give consent.

So knowing that guys were accused and charged at this level of intoxication, the scenario stands as relevant.

Re:Question:

[ryanov]

Haven't you noticed how much more viciously people go after, say, a pretty woman walking in a dangerous area who's assaulted vs. a guy in a suit who looks like he has money getting robbed?

Re:Question:

[ryanov]

Go to a Vagina Monologues showing and watch when they say "if you or someone you know have been the victim of sexual abuse, please stand." It's generally a solid portion of the room. I personally have an ex who was raped, and know others who have been the victims of sexual abuse.

Trying to argue that the number of false accusations is even close to the number of real rapes (consider how many go unreported) is not doing anyone a favor and perpetuating a stupid sexist myth that women are out there just waiting to accuse people off rape so people shouldn't believe them. There's enough prejudice against women already; that shit simply isn't necessary.

Re:Question:

[Mongoose Disciple]

Where your logic fails is that "discussion of risks" doesn't take place for almost any other kind of criminal defense.

If I have $100 in my wallet, and you pickpocket me and are caught, your defense lawyer would never in a million years ask why I didn't leave that money at home, or why I didn't have a wallet chain, or aren't I asking for it by having cash instead of writing checks?

If you kill a person in cold blood, your defense lawyer would never try to tell the jury, 'Look, the victim's pretty much an asshole. Maybe he shouldn't have been such an asshole.'

If you're caught shoplifting from a store, your defense lawyer would never say, 'But look at how shitty their security is!'

Re:Question:

[Miseph]

No, it's not. You do not assume that the accused is innocent by assuming that the accuser is guilty.

It was, not so long ago, a very effective defense in rape cases to simply claim that the victim was "loose". The theory went that since "loose" women always consented to sex, it couldn't have been raped. Prostitutes were, effectively, legally unable to be rape victims at all.

Re:Question:

[ryanov]

Oh please, it gets said every other article.

Re:Question:

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell you what. I'll make this easy.

I claim that a woman should not expect to be able to safely walk down a dark, empty street at 2 AM, drunk and wearing a miniskirt and heels. I claim that any woman doing this alone, without a male escort, or a good goddamn reason not to have one (husband in the hospital, asshole boyfriend kicked her out in the middle of the night, etc.), deserves to be raped.

You can go ahead and respond to that. That should simplify things. Notice, by the way, that I didn't mention weapons, or pepper spray. Those don't change the situation, for various reasons.

Re:Question:

[Anonymous Coward]

I think destroying this man's career is the lightest punishment, even if by a false accusation. Do you have any idea how many careers he decimated? Do you really think all the revenue was generated by this man selling HP's more stuff and land and buildings and not by the hard work of thousands of workers whose benefits get cut every year while this monster's salary and bonus keep going up and up?

Re:Question:

[Rary]

But there is a big difference between saying that and pretending that you are absolutely helpless and that such crimes always occur completely at random.

And who is saying that, Mr. Strawman?

Now, sure, I should be able to walk down the street counting hundred dollar bills in such a neighborhood at 2 am and not get robbed. My actions don't EXCUSE the criminals who might rob me. But that doesn't mean that my own behavior wasn't foolish, or that it had absolutely no influence on the crime.

Yes, your behaviour is foolish. And yes, as you said, that foolishess doesn't excuse the criminals. But here's the thing: with rape, people question the victim's actions precisely for the purpose of excusing the criminal behaviour.

That's why they had to create the Rape Shield Laws. The victim's behaviour was being brought into question as a standard way of mounting a defense. The thinking was (and still is— just because they can't use it in court anymore doesn't stop people from thinking this way) that if the victim acted a certain way, they were asking for it, and this took away the defendant's responsibility for his actions.

It wouldn't make it any less a robbery, but that's very different that saying that I bear no responsibility for my own foolish actions.

Exactly. It wouldn't make it any less a robbery. But, when it comes to rape, this same thinking is applied to make it less a rape.

And if you think that people don't think this way anymore, you're fooling yourself.

Re:Question:

[falsified]

Mississippi?

Re:Question:

[Anonymous Coward]

On a planet where no one in this discussion but you (~50 comments at that time) took the time to actually think that the OP was named trisexual puppy and that maybe he was just trolling.
He recorded the cop talking to the woman? Yeaa, right!

Re:Question:

[YoshiDan]

Prostitutes can't be raped. It's more a case of shoplifting.

Re:Question:

[catmistake]

My understanding, though I've not read about the case in depth, is that he was accused, he admitted to it, and the accuser had already worked out a resolution, then the crap hit the fan, so to speak.

huh... I heard the accusations were baseless... but that a PR fuck thought that a scandal (aka, an investigation) would hurt the company image

"In losing Mark Hurd, the HP board failed to act in the best interest of HP's employees, shareholders, customers and partners," Ellison wrote to the Times. "The HP board admits that it fully investigated the sexual harassment claims against Mark and found them to be utterly false."AppleInsider

Re:Question:

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/technology/09hp.html?_r=1

When he was first accused the board hired a PR firm to figure out if there will be a big PR hit if Mark stayed on as the CEO. Only after the PR fight said it will be a big negative did they force him out.

If it was an average guy working there who got accused, I am pretty sure it will be at the least a suspension of some sort while they investigated. Not a check with a PR firm to see if he should stay or not.

Shows how different it is for one of those Cunt level Execs and an average person,

Re:Question:

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, thank you. That's the best explanation of the situation I've seen all thread.

Re:Question:

[Anonymous Coward]

Second, no matter how drunk he may have been, a man can't seriously claim that he did not consent to sex if he, under no coercion to do so, climbs on top of an unconscious woman, spreads her legs apart and penetrates her. The actions show a deliberate choice to rape the woman.

Well, then. What about a scenario where a guy is so drunk he's almost passing out, and a woman (also drunk, let's assume) lays him down on his back, strokes his penis until he's erect, and then rides him like a cowgirl?

Not all sex is missionary style, you know. Or, more precisely, you have constructed a SPECIFIC scenario in response to a GENERAL question, and then extrapolated from that specific scenario to the general case after constructing it precisely to be biased towards a certain outcome.

The general question remains. If someone's being drunk means they cannot consent, then logically, if two drunk people have sex, neither of them consented. So by contradiction, we have proof that the claim that being drunk necessarily implies an inability to consent is untrue, and we are faced with the question of just when and under which circumstances it does - and we are forced to evaluate this question in depth and give an a posteriori answer.

Re:Question:

[ultranova]

We live in a society that assumes that men want to have sex with women, no matter their state of mind, and that further presumes that a man cannot be raped by a woman, and any man that does make such a claim is a pussy. So it is understandable that so few cases are prosecuted.

More importantly, most women calling themselves "feminists" nowadays switch between "women are equal - nay, superior - to men" and "women are poor victims who need to be protected from those nasty, mean men", depending on which will benefit them most at the moment. The very same person who gets drunk and has sex with strangers then turns around and accuses them from not protecting her from herself nonetheless demand equal power in society. And it's never the woman's own lack of ability that keeps her from rising to the top in an organization, no, it's a conspiracy of men - the "glass ceiling" doing it!

Just like modern libertarians are corporate whores bringing shame to once-proud name, so are modern feminists psychopathic hypocratic drama queens who would get the living crap beaten out of them by those past ones who went to jail and sometimes died for the sake of being treated like adults rather than adult children. This goes especially to all of you - "I was almost raped" - radical - "all heterosexual sex is rape" - feminists - "child molestation is okay if it's a woman doing it to boys" - out there (all actual quotes).

Sometimes I really wish I'd been born homosexual so I wouldn't have to deal with this shit...

Re:Question:

[makomk]

Actually, a drunk man who has sex with a sober woman could press rape charges.

Well, he could try to press rape charges anyway. Chances are he'd be laughed right out of the police station, complete with threats to have him arrested for wasting police time.

Re:Question:

[makomk]

All of this is true... so long as the person making the accusation is female and the person being accused of abusing the kids is male. If you're a guy and make accusations in a divorce case that your wife abused the kids - well, best not to go there unless you have rock-solid proof, and think carefully even then because it's a good way to lose all access to them. (Believe it or not, a lot of kids out there are abused by women - sexually, physically and emotionally.)

Also, it's not a simple case of protecting the kids at the expense of wrongfully seperating them from one of their parents. Denying the other parent access is an obvious move for an abuser to make - it ensures that the kids have nowhere else to go and eliminates someone they could otherwise talk about the abuse to. (Well, as long as said abuser is female, anyway.)

There was a lovely case earlier this year here in the UK where a mother of two kids told the police that her ex-husband had harassed her and got them to keep him away from the house where they were staying. She used this opportunity to murder both kids in peace. The reason he was there in the first place was that it was his house - she had a home elsewhere but had broken in. He told the police he was worried about her halming the kids, but because he was male they saw him as the only potential danger.

Re:Question:

[ryanov]

Thanks, that was very well written, and was at least in part what I was having trouble articulating.

Re:Question:

[Jorophose]

Second, no matter how drunk he may have been, a man can't seriously claim that he did not consent to sex if he, under no coercion to do so, climbs on top of an unconscious woman, spreads her legs apart and penetrates her. The actions show a deliberate choice to rape the woman.

I guess you've never heard of this:

Today, I had drunk sex with a girl that I barely know. I didn't have a condom and was nervous about getting her pregnant, but she assured me that I could pull out. Right when I was about to pull out, she wrapped her legs around me and yelled : "BE MY BABY'S DADDY!" I couldn't get out in time. FML

what happens then? is it impossible that a girl goes on a guy? yeah, he's the one with the penis, but she's the one who initiated the action.

Re:Question:

[jadavis]

go back to suspecting women are lying when they call rape

Never said that.

Re:Question:

[badkarmadayaccount]

Actually, I doubt there are a lot of male slashdotters that won't agree with tha last quote.

Re:Question:

[ground.zero.612]

Oh, and another reason: if you make 1000 times what the average middle class worker makes, you're alright when you're let go. I could make it 6 months without dipping into retirement, probably. If you can get fired from your job and say "eh, I'll go out on my sailboat for awhile" it's a very different experience, I'd say, even if it were embarrassing.

I think you've made several mistakes in attempting to reason away your callousness. For starters, you seem to lack the comprehension that middle class income can't even afford the property tax on upper class homes; let alone other bills such as utilities, communications, and travel expenses. I know people that earn so much more than me, that they pay more in taxes than I actually earn. However, I don't pretend that these people can afford not to work (or lose their jobs).

Now, maybe you think everyone should be forced to live on middle class wages, and never acquire more than middle class homes, cars, lives. I'm sure glad I've had the opportunity to Baron Von Munchausen myself out of the swamp of poverty and earn enough success to pay for some luxuries.

Re:Question:

[ryanov]

And I think you're missing something too: they may lose what they have, but what they had was significantly more than "a place to live" and "dinner on the table." It may be be unfortunate for them too, but they're noplace near starving. That is my point. In addition, if you make that much money, you should be putting some of it away.

Re:Question:

[Anonymous Coward]

Ringworld is unstable! Ringworld is unstable!

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?RingWorld

Harassment...

[grub]

No stranger himself to sexual harassment allegations, Oracle CEO Larry Ellison

I heard Larry Ellison keeps the sexual harassment forms in the bottom drawer of his desk. That way when a woman goes to get one he can check out her ass.

.

Re:Harassment...

[fermion]

Exactly, this is just a case of the old boys club sticking together to keep their perks. After all, what is the point of being a top level executive if you can't use company resources to pay for dates.It was only 10-100K a pop to get the lady to have dinner. Not that much in the scheme of HP finances? He departure will certainly cost more than that, so it was silly to make him leave. It was only a woman after all, not a real person.

Re:Harassment...

[Lythrdskynrd]

this is the funniest one liner I think i've ever heard.
I'm sure it's one of those 'old as time' ones - but it really hit my funny bone.

Re:Harassment...

[cjjjer]

I heard the harassment form is one of the forms in a females employee's handbook and is pre filled out except the date.

Re:Harassment...

[Kildjean]

Destroyed? He will have a book, a movie, a star in the hall of fame a squeegy doll made on his image and his daughter will get arrested for drugs or pregnant before we know it and he is still going to be richer than all of us....

Re:Harassment...

[computational super]

this is just a case of the old boys club sticking together to keep their perks.

Yeah, let's keep up the fight for equality until no man can find employment!

Re:Harassment...

[ryanov]

Hey hivemind! I think this neuron over here is shot! Put in a work order.

Politics politics

[GPLDAN]

This has turned into a episode of Mad Men. the lawyer wants the CEO out, because maybe he has some dirt on him. Call it Pack Men.

Hopefully, the offended woman will do some Ahley Dupree photo shoots soon so we can see what the fuss is about.

Re:Politics politics

[markdowling]

If you RTFAed, you would know that there is already, um, material in the public domain.

Re:Politics politics

[Whalou]

Hopefully, the offended woman will do some Ahley Dupree photo shoots soon so we can see what the fuss is about.

No need to wait for a photoshoot, she's done some B/C-movies: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0167546/.
Intimate Obsession and Body of Influence 2 should give you what you were looking for.

Re:Politics politics

[Fnord666]

Hopefully, the offended woman will do some Ahley Dupree photo shoots soon so we can see what the fuss is about.

Here you go.

Too much

[binarylarry]

I bet the guy was too successful and shook things up for too many of the other managers.

The other guys being, you know, the rider/failure/moron type of management common at most companies.

You can't get things done in a big company like HP without pissing on a few people's pet projects and interests.

Obvious

[Sockatume]

With so many senior tech company staff quitting or being fired in the past few weeks, I must conclude that there is a connection. The Earth is doomed, and these individuals have been chosen to be part of the secret task-force designing the space craft that will whisk the rich and influential away to live on another planet.

Re:Obvious

[broknstrngz]

And sexual harassment was the easiest selling excuse ;) Actually I do dream about retiring in a similar fashion, preferably when I'm 85. Or even better, have a deadline say "man, 85, shot dead by jealous husband".

Re:Obvious

[broknstrngz]

I obviously meant headline!

Re:Obvious

[WrongSizeGlass]

The Earth is doomed, and these individuals have been chosen to be part of the secret task-force designing the space craft that will whisk the rich and influential away to live on another planet.

Let's hope Hurd does a better job designing the spacecraft that's going to save us all than HP did with its initial 'slate' offering ... and we're all crossing our fingers that this space craft will run WebOS instead of Windows.

Re:Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

... or better yet, "shot dead by angry father"

Re:Obvious

[19thNervousBreakdown]

Why do you want to be shot by your husband?

Re:Obvious

[broknstrngz]

Sorry, I meant your husband.

Re:Obvious

[19thNervousBreakdown]

Oh don't worry, we have an open relationship.

But, if you want to be "shot"...

Re:Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

You just recounted the plot of: They Live

Re:Obvious

[broknstrngz]

Is he usually a good shooter?

Re:Obvious

[Machtyn]

That's what they keep telling those politicians, military men, hairdressers, financial consultants, and telephone cleaners.

Re:Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Hurry the fuck up, please.

Re:Obvious

[Locke2005]

Actually, it's the 'B' Ark they're putting him on, but they keep telling him it's for the "rich and influential" or else he wouldn't get on board.

Larry's statement - without logging in.

[(H)elix1]

Be nice to find another news source - like this one where a login was not needed.

"In losing Mark Hurd, the H-P board failed to act in the best interest of H.P.'s employees, shareholders, customers and partners," Ellison wrote in an email to The New York Times, which posted excerpts of the email late Monday. "The H-P board admits that it fully investigated the sexual harassment claims against Mark and found them to be utterly false."

Re:Larry's statement - without logging in.

[Princeofcups]

Sociopaths are, well, sociopathic. They couldn't care less how their actions affect other people.

Re:Larry's statement - without logging in.

[Maarx]

I didn't click your link (this is /.), but did they really inconsistently use HP, H.P., and H-P?

Re:Larry's statement - without logging in.

[imaswinger]

yes

Re:Larry's statement - without logging in.

[Anonymous Coward]

What rubbish, since when are the "interests of H.P.'s employees, shareholders, customers and partners" in alignment. To put it bluntly every dollar paid to an employee is a dollar less to distribute to shareholders. What not exactly a zero sum game corporate priorities often conflict with their employees and customers.

Violated policy

[glittermage]

Mark violated other company policies and chose the better path. There are many other people who can fill the shoes of the CEO at HP. Mark's departure strengthened the HP brand and that is very valuable.

Re:Violated policy

[Anonymous Coward]

" Mark's departure strengthened the HP brand ..."

Whether the HP brand has been strengthened or not remains to be seen,
at least for those who don't have a crystal ball it does.

For those like you who think that any move which is politically correct must
therefore be a wise move, I have derision which is quite beyond the power of
comprehension of your tiny little sheep brain.

Re:Violated policy

[couchslug]

"Mark violated other company policies and chose the better path. There are many other people who can fill the shoes of the CEO at HP. Mark's departure strengthened the HP brand and that is very valuable."

Spintastic, good sir! Delivered with impeccable corporate style. :)

Re:Violated policy

[cgenman]

HP has been headed by complete imbeciles for years now. The legendarily bad Carly was just the first headliner.

I'm not too close to his work, but Mark Hurd was actually the first HP CEO in years that didn't seem to be a completely vacuous idiot. By not immediately firing every engineer and outsourcing design to wikipedia, Mark Hurd was the best HP CEO since the 90's. He seemed like he wanted to lead a business that actually made things. It was shocking.

While there are many people that can competently fill the shoes of the CEO at HP, if history is any indication the board will elect Mister Bean.

Re:Violated policy

[Anonymous Coward]

Your brain came to the conclusion that post was predicting the future? Your brain make up stories like that when you don't show awareness? Maybe the statement was based on HP's benchmark. Read HP vaules @ http://www8.hp.com/us/en/hp-information/about-hp/corporate-objectives.html to enlighten your brain. Mark showed uncompromising integrity in resigning and that makes Mark & HP look better right now. In that sense, I can agree with comments.

Re:Violated policy

[zlogic]

Mark was a CEO who made investors happy. He reduced expenses, however with the price of layin g off people and reducing salaries. IT is not what it used to be in the 1990s, when incredibly expensive equipment and huge salaries. Instead of printing emails and webpages, people save them and read from smartphones, e-readers and other portable devices, so the amount of printed pages (and ink) may start decreasing. Computers have become incredibly cheap and competing with Chinese and Taiwanese companies is incredibly difficult - their laptops have razor-thin margins and are perfectly usable for most tasks. Mark tried to expand HP into other directions - services, networking and the recent acquisition of Palm may result in some very interesting consumer devices. Just look at HP's stock price, it is 2-4 times higher than the price when Carly was CEO.
I only wish HP bought Agilent back, they have great engineers who make interesting and expensive stuff for a much less crowded market than computers.

Re:Violated policy

[Anonymous Coward]

By not immediately firing every engineer and outsourcing design to wikipedia, Mark Hurd was the best HP CEO since the 90's. He seemed like he wanted to lead a business that actually made things. It was shocking.

cgenman has obviously not worked for HP under the cost/employee cutting Hurd. You can only cut so much before you have to start outsourcing, which is what's happening now.

Re:Violated policy

[cgenman]

I have not. If I am wrong about the man, I'm sorry. And it is distinctly possible that I am.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100809-711931.html

As far as I can tell, though, Mark Hurd still wanted to run a company that makes things. Carly and Dunn wanted HP to be a "brand," and to outsource design development and marketing to everyone else. The H.P. iPod is a perfect example of the vacuousness of their reign. Hurd seemed like a normal-bad CEO. Carly and Dunn seemed like marketing droids that set legendary new standards for "bad CEO."

All this crossover

[countertrolling]

It seems like there are only about ten people in total that sit on the boards of all the world's Corporations. Something's wrong with that.

"a profound lack of judgment"

[blind biker]

Is this how "corruption on a massive scale" is spelled, nowadays?

Re:"a profound lack of judgment"

[NevarMore]

It's spelled C-E-O.

Re:"a profound lack of judgment"

[Anonymous Coward]

A few dinners by a middle age bloke getting some on the side is corruption on a massive scale? What's wrong with you?

Re:"a profound lack of judgment"

[Maarx]

A few dinners by a middle age bloke getting some on the side is corruption on a massive scale? What's wrong with you?

$20,000 dinners?

Re:"a profound lack of judgment"

[blind biker]

It's spelled C-E-O

In today's corporate world, dominated by psychopaths, yes, it is.

Re:"a profound lack of judgment"

[jpcarter]

A few dinners by a middle age bloke getting some on the side is corruption on a massive scale? What's wrong with you?

$20,000 dinners?

Yes. Sounds like about 10 - 15 nice dinners to me.

Those $500 bottles of wine add up fast.

Re:"a profound lack of judgment"

[blind biker]

It's spelled C-E-O.

In today's corporate world, dominated by psychopaths, yes, it is.

Sexual harassment

[Elektroschock]

It is a matter of a criminal court, not company policy.

Re:Sexual harassment

[dwye]

No, it is civil, not criminal, matter, unless it was actual assault or rape (not the case, here). Since Hurd and the lady settled the matter privately, it is no court's business.

Re:Sexual harassment

[Elektroschock]

if its not criminal why bother

Re:Sexual harassment

[raddan]

Because it can be extremely damaging to a company, both financially and in public perception (which ends up being a financial problem further down the road). The public tolerates many kinds of wrongdoing, but sexual wrongdoing tends not to be one of those.

Re:Sexual harassment

[Elektroschock]

Isn't that a private and personal issue which has nothing to do with business?

Re:Sexual harassment

[raddan]

Of course, but on some level, your CEO represents your company. If Mattel hired an ex-convict serial rapist to run their Barbie division, there would be immediate financial consequences to that decision, regardless of what a shrewd businessman that guy is.

Re:Sexual harassment

[Elektroschock]

Well, that is just because of the CEO cult in the United States...

Re:Sexual harassment

[raddan]

I disagree. Your CEO is also your chief spokesperson. When you look at what a CEO does, the vast majority of that work is talking. A great deal of that talking is done to people outside of your organization. Image is very important. People outside the United States may see a CEO's private life and a CEO's public life as two separate things (I doubt it, though), but that is not the case here, and the be honest with you, I'm not sure that it should be. I tend to believe that if it's a private life you want, then very public jobs (like being a CEO) should not be on your agenda.

Re:Sexual harassment

[Elektroschock]

Actually, that is not a very German concept of governance. I think a CEO who talks about visions is a waste of our time, a personality cult. Talking cheap as we say, or: show me your code/results. A chief spokesperson is your press officer who keeps the media at bay.

The role of governance is centered about taking decisions and bearing responsibility. That means you are to blame when things go wrong. Your private life is irrelevant to this end.

GNU/

[wcoenen]

How many times do we have to say it people? It's GNU/Hurd!

She didn't want him fired

[zstlaw]

Part of the scandal that she didn't want him fired as he had already settled the harassment charges with her. The pictures I saw showed very attractive actress back in her 30s (she is 50 now). She was hired for marketing and networking. ("HP paid her up to $5,000 per event to greet people and make introductions among executives")

She reported unwanted advances and that uncovered a forged dinner reimbursement with her that was why he was ousted. (He probably was with another woman but claimed it was her so he could get dinner reimbursed.) She says she was "surprised and saddened" that Hurd lost his job. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38611219/ns/business-us_business/

Re:She didn't want him fired

[Anonymous Coward]

"She reported unwanted advances and that uncovered a forged dinner reimbursement with her"

I wonder what form those "unwanted advances" took.

Yes we should punish stuff like molestation, assault and rape, and persisting after the other party tells you to stop.

But in cultures where it's the norm for the males to make the "advances" and the females to not do so, it would be counterproductive to consider all unwanted advances as ethically or legally offensive.

FWIW, some women have been known to only like their suitors after many "wooing" attempts. As a guy I'd be very happy if the majority want "no really means no" and after some generations we end up with fewer and fewer women that say "no" but mean yes/maybe. Over the long term the resultant culture will probably be better for it.

HP board a source of intrigue a few years ago?

[swb]

Why do I remember reading some long article (NY Times? New Yorker?) about intrigue on the HP board. It may have been Fiorina related, but I seem to recall something to do with cell phone records, etc.

Re:HP board a source of intrigue a few years ago?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe it was involved in a leak of information to the press. The company board went insane trying to find it and resorted to some really crazy stuff to try to find out who leaked the stuff (Bugging emails to phone home, using social engineering to illegally obtain reporters and their families phone records, and other crazy stuff like that) only to learn that it was one of the board who was the leaker and was doing it as a part of their normal business in order to drum up hype, and freely admitted to it. (I believe they forced him out over it). They of course played the 'We only hired a guy and he told us it was all legal' card and I don't think they actually got in trouble over anything.

Re:HP board a source of intrigue a few years ago?

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

(Bugging emails to phone home, using social engineering to illegally obtain reporters and their families phone records, and other crazy stuff like that)
The slimy lawyer term used was pretexting, everybody else knows it as identity theft and fraud.

Yes

[snowwrestler]

He was not fired for the sexual harassment stuff. In fact he was cleared of violating HP's policy and he settled the suit out of court. Both he and woman have confirmed that they did not have a sexual relationship.

He was fired for filing inaccurate expense reports totalling about $20,000. Basically he concealed the fact that he was expensing meetings with this woman. HP has stated that they do have clear evidence of that, and that Hurd admitted it and offered to repay the $20k. Instead they fired him.

He was a superstar manager. If HP's financial performance suffers without Hurd, they could lose tens of billions of dollars in market cap. If that happens I have to think that investors are going to question whether that $20k was worth it.

Re:Yes

[s.d.]

He was a superstar manager. If HP's financial performance suffers without Hurd, they could lose tens of billions of dollars in market cap. If that happens I have to think that investors are going to question whether that $20k was worth it.

I don't disagree that he has been an amazing manager at HP, helping to turn things around after the mess that was Carly Fiorina.

However, how much corruption is too much to overlook? Where do you draw that line? He falsified records to get expenses paid out to himself and/or this woman for $20k, and when caught red-handed, offered to pay it back. Ok, but what if he wasn't caught? Would he have kept doing it? Would he have done it with some other woman? What happens if he wasn't caught until the total was in the millions? Would that have still been ok, because a couple million is still less than tens of billions in market cap?

What is the value of corporate officers acting honestly no matter what?

Re:Yes

[grasshoppa]

This is business, not government. In business, you perform a cost analysis, with the risks and potential benefits.

Morality, ethics don't really enter in to the question unless it becomes a PR and marketing issue.

Hurd was doing a great job for the company, and yes he fucked up. However, I believe someone used this situation as a cover for their own personal agenda.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in cases like this you don't. There isn't any leeway, especially at the top. Hell, I am not even close to the top but would be fired if I falsified even $150 on an expense report. We have to take anti-corruption training every year or two, including things like this and more gray-area ones like accepting tickets to sporting events from vendors, etc. They make it clear that there is no exception - you violate the policy and you are out. You can't really expect LESS from the executives. They have to be the ones that show what is acceptable. Once you have proof that one of them did wrong - keeping them with a "mea culpa" and a remuneration just isn't going to fly. It tells the workers that the company has no compunction against corruption and if you get caught it is OK - just pay it back. In fact, these execs can't even truthfully fill out their SOX compliance stuff if they know this is going on.

Re:Yes

[OnlineAlias]

People simply do not understand things at the top of the political/business world. None of this was about what he did, falsified what, or expensed whatever. This was about someone else wanting him out. Someone powerful wants the job, or doesn't like the guy, period.

People at this level are in constant competition with others to keep their jobs, and have to force others out. If you make yourself politically weak by doing some jackoff thing like this, it makes it easier to take you out. Here, someone did. They managed to overlook the data center for his kids school, for chrissake. He just had more juice at that time.

Re:Yes

[markdowling]

Mod parent up. I have no doubt that a $200 falsification at a big.ugly.corp would have you marched out of the building with your box of trinkets. It does seem like a Capone-esque way of getting rid of him, and Gawker's story on the school possibly points to a far bigger, but allowed drain on shareholder funds via executive sense of entitlement than lying about expenses.

Re:Yes

[the_hellspawn]

You just didn't use superstar and manager in the same sentence and in a positive light did you? omg! you did. You must read Dilbert and pay particular attention to the pointy haired boss and their CEO. Dilbert's depiction is spot on with management. LOL superstar manager LOL!

Re:Yes

[OnlineAlias]

The agenda being "get money for myself". Someone powerful wants money, and he is in-between them and that. That is all it ever is.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument is exactly why companies should not be considered legal persons: because they lack a functioning morality.

Re:Yes

[StylusEater]

Exactly! He was not fired because of some crazy woman and her true OR false allegations. He was fired for stealing money from his company. Heck, if one of us peons did it we'd probably have formal charges brought up versus a nice slap on the wrist and a retirement to a second tier CEO position.

Re:Yes

[eison]

I'm pretty sure their HR department has a zero tolerance policy on stealing from the company. How much money do I have to be worth before the rules don't apply to me anymore? Do you really think it's only unacceptable to steal if I'm on the bottom half of the org chart?

Re:Yes

[farble1670]

If that happens I have to think that investors are going to question whether that $20k was worth it.

investors probably want to know also that HP management doesn't stand for execs stealing from the company. it's their money after all. or, maybe the rule should be that as long as they don't steal more than they are ostensibly worth, it's all good.

you'd also have to ask whether you want to employ a man who is dumb enough to steal $20k when he's getting six+ figure salary not to mention bonuses.

Re:Yes

[timeOday]

Allowing the CEO to remain after getting caught stealing from the company would be incredibly demoralizing to everybody else working there. The corporate culture would be equal parts cynicism and kleptomania.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

The same is true where I work. Hell, the groundskeeper has to take the ethics classes.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

For $20,000?! What the heck is wrong with these damn sociopaths (yes, there's the answer). The guy makes, what, tens of millions of dollars? And he pulls this $20K stunt?

Re:Yes

[elrous0]

Amen. Boards overlook much bigger CEO infractions than this all the time. Someone (or, more likely, more than one) on the board wanted him gone for other reasons. This was just the formal legal CYA reason. The *real* truth may or may not ever come out.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

they probably paid the woman to accuse him too.

Re:Yes

[couchslug]

"What is the value of corporate officers acting honestly no matter what?"

Nothing to the corporation. 20K is about the equivalent of keeping a pen from work in you pocket and leaving it at home. (How many of us have a cupful of pens, Sharpies, etc?)

There are plenty of options between retention and dismissal. A verbal reprimand would be invisible and likely have gotten the job done. Someone had it out for him.

Re:Yes

[cgenman]

There isn't any leeway, especially at the top.

And this is why kids get kicked out of schools for having a butter knife in their lunch box.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/08/10/businessinsider-backlash-against-hewlett-packard-grows-it-seems-mark-hurd-fired-because-company-scared-of-bad-pr-over-bogus-sexual-harassment-allegation-2010-8.DTL

Re:Yes

[MozeeToby]

"Good ethics is good business"

It's the internal motto at the company I work for and they hammer it home time and time again. And it pays off, the company is regularly rated high for ethics and trust, especially compared to other places in our industry. Not everyone feels the way you assume, some realize that lots of small costs now can pay off in the future by increasing the trust that your customers put in you.

Re:Yes

[snowwrestler]

If they lack a functioning morality, then why did Hurd get fired?

Re:Yes

[geminidomino]

The corporate culture would be equal parts cynicism and kleptomania.

There are still "corporate cultures" that have a different composition?

Re:Yes

[Rich0]

Uh, can we perhaps find a balance between butter knives and embezzlement? If I falsified an expense report deliberately it would be punished.

If as a CEO he approved a $35M contract and somewhere on page 805 of the contract there was some fine print the lawyers missed that cost the company $20k, I'd say that this was an oversight that should be overlooked. When you expense things that do not have to do with the running of the company, then you are violating policy, and likely the law (tax implications).

Re:Yes

[Bigjeff5]

For what they were paying the guy, and what he was bringing in for the company, $20,000 was a drop in the bucket. Hurd was making millions every year, and he was earning every penny of it.

It's about the same as firing your best programmer because he took a notebook home with him and didn't use it for work. Yeah, it was stealing, but it was gray area stealing (it would have been fine if he were using it for work) and it was a $20 item. His skills bring in a million dollars a year for your company, yet you only pay him $100,000.

Are you really sure it's a good idea to give up $899,995 profit every year because he took a notebook home?

It's the same thing. $20,000 is, by itself, a lot of money, but in the scheme of things it really isn't. Hurd has saved HP hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, and took it from falling fast to rising again in in just a few years.

Are you really dumb enough to get rid of him for a piddly $20,000 "error in judgement"?

Re:Yes

[Bigjeff5]

They managed to overlook the data center for his kids school, for chrissake. He just had more juice at that time.

They overlooked it because the guy railroading him helped him put that data center in place.

Re:Yes

[Bigjeff5]

I don't understand, how is being really, really good at your job, and being well known for being really, really good at your job, a bad thing?

You must live in backwards-land.

You should quit looking to Dilbert for your career advice.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

"However, how much corruption is too much to overlook?"
and
"What is the value of corporate officers acting honestly no matter what?"

Well, you provided shit for an argument, instead just posing the typical hardline approach that all crime in the same crime and should be reported and done away with crap, so I'll give it a more reasonable attempt:

Corporate officers should not be held to a higher standard. They should be held to a lower standard, or the same standard as everyone relative to the job position they are in.

I know most people won't like that.

To me, it depends on his working budget as a CEO, and whether at the time of his questionable actions, was it knowingly reasonable for him to consider what he was doing was unethical or criminal. $20k sounds like a lot, but if he's normal expenses run in the millions, that's like firing a guy who had a $200 working budget and misappropriated $2 to buy a company of vending machine candy bars.

If I have a star money manager, and in a rush to catch a flight he's late for an important business meeting, he needs a pen, and instead raids the supply closet and grabs 3 boxes of markers and pens and runs out, to you, he stole, and should be fired. To you, corruption is corrupt, ain't it. To me, his actions are not that of a criminal or unethical mind.

If I have a janitor cleaning that same supply closet, and he removes 3 boxes for his own personal use, different story. To you, you would treat that the same as the fund manager who "stole." To me, they are completely different.

If Hurd was focused on, well, getting some, and he thought, "Hmm, why don't I entertain her on a flight back cross-country on the company's jet," that's probably $5,000 (yeah, business jets are expensive). If he's lavishing high end chef meals on his prospective honey or future mistress, he does this for a couple of months, I don't quite see the mens rea in this. To you, do you honestly believe he's saying "man, I want to screw the company over by expensing this," or is this simply an oversight or typical matter where he frequently entertains on the books activities that should be off the books? If he's done this before, and no one cared, that's more behavior that it should be excused, or rather that this particular situation was used simply as an excuse to oust him--a political move, PR'd as an ethics violation.

So no, I don't give a shit of the POTUS takes an emergency pee break in the farmer's field. I give a shit if the punk in his 20s pisses in my cola at the fast food restaurant.

Re:Yes

[Anomalyst]

Of course those kids don't have a $150 million golden parachute to allow them and 1000 of their closest friends maintain the lifestyle to which they are accustomed.
How smart can this dufus be to, as a CxO , set himself up for a sexual harassment beef and endanger what surely is a multimillion dollar salary to embezzle a piddly $20K, all because of the blood rushing to his other head. HP's turn around is far more likely the result of lower lever suits cut loose from Carly's idiot policies than anything this dipwad instigated.

Re:Yes

[Draek]

However, how much corruption is too much to overlook? Where do you draw that line?

I draw it at "is a reasonable expense for the person involved" (which implies "small relative to his actual monthly salary"). You and I may not, but the folk at the upper end of the corporate ladder can and do spend over a thousand dollars in dinner, though even they aren't able to just go out and spend a million on a whim.

Same reason why I don't think a regular worker should be fired for using the company phone to call his family for instance. Yes, it's technically a misuse of corporate resources and all that, but for God's sake, firing him for that is just excesive and stupid from a PR and HR standpoint.

Re:Yes

[jvkjvk]

I'm pretty sure the HR department had no say in the matter.

I'm pretty sure "someone" on the board decided to use this to get rid of him no matter what and this was extremely convenient.

I'm sure that otherwise it would have never become known.

How much money do I have to be worth before the rules don't apply to me anymore?

The fact that you ask this is indicative that you are not in that class of beings. People who are in that class are already aware that the rules don't apply to them.

Regards.

Re:Yes

[flibuste]

What is the value of corporate officers acting honestly no matter what?

When do corporations and their "officers" act honestly, when it's a case of no matter what? Any example, I can't find one...

Re:Yes

[Locke2005]

they could lose tens of billions of dollars in market cap. They have already lost about 10 billion in market cap, just on the news of him leaving.

Re:Yes

[scot4875]

So no, I don't give a shit of the POTUS takes an emergency pee break in the farmer's field. I give a shit if the punk in his 20s pisses in my cola at the fast food restaurant.

<blinks>

So ... I'm unclear on this. What are your feelings about the POTUS taking an emergency pee break in your cola at the fast food restaurant?

--Jeremy

Re:Yes

[BobMcD]

Uh, can we perhaps find a balance between butter knives and embezzlement?

Well, we could, except:

There isn't any leeway...

Seems you missed that part.

Re:Yes

[Zebedeu]

If HP's financial performance suffers without Hurd, they could lose tens of billions of dollars in market cap. If that happens I have to think that investors are going to question whether that $20k was worth it.

I think it was Warren Buffet who said that you can't do good business with bad people.

If I were an HP investor, I'd know if the $20k was worth it.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

"He was a superstar manager. If HP's financial performance suffers without Hurd, they could lose tens of billions of dollars in market cap. If that happens I have to think that investors are going to question whether that $20k was worth it."

Short term, he did good things for the share price, primarily by decimating the work force, slashing salaries and farming everything off to the muppets in Mumbai. Which made for some *very* nice bonuses for Mr.Hurd.
Long-term, he's left behind a truly dysfunctional service organization, whose remaining employees are each doing the work of three people and fondly looking forward to the day the economy turns around, so they can jump ship in droves.
Oh yeah, and customers don't seem particularly happy either these days.

Here's hoping he runs into some of the "human capital" he threw under the bus to bump up a given quarters numbers.

Re:Yes

[pathological liar]

I don't disagree that he has been an amazing manager at HP, helping to turn things around after the mess that was Carly Fiorina.

You might not, plenty of people disagree. I realize this is just coming from a blog, but the guy has his name (or someone's anyway) on it, and he spent almost 30 years at HP.

He raped HP employees (figuratively, without violating the sexual conduct code at HP) by eliminating the sixty-five year concept of profit sharing, preferring to move to obscene bonuses for himself and his five top minions -- a mere $113 million payout for them in a year he chopped everyone else's pay by 5% plus profit-sharing. These were raises for some of the five people by as much as 400% -- a tidy uptick.

...

The Voice of the Workplace, HP's thirty-five year historic 'measure' of employee feelings (done every five years) showed in April an astonishing finding -- more than two-thirds of HP's employees would quit tomorrow if they had an equivalent job offer. Not a raise, not a promotion, simply an alternative.

He might have turned the economics of the company around, but that doesn't mean he wasn't driving it into the ground. He sounds like a sociopath and a world-class shithead.

Re:Yes

[MechaStreisand]

Why aren't you asking why, when he was paid so much for what he was doing, he had to embezzle at all? It shows an absolutely astonishing lack of ethics and he doesn't deserve to be in any position of trust. Now, you're right about him being a net positive at least from a financial standpoint, but I'm just wondering why he had to be such a scumbag.

Let me guess

[Anonymous Coward]

Your solution is to bring in the 10 people that sit on the board of government to replace them.

Re:Let me guess

[countertrolling]

:-) Guess again. Your troll games don't work on me. You only look like one of those "free market" fanatics.

These companies are subject to SEC rules, as toothless as they are. A person should only be permitted to sit on one board at a time.. none of this two places at once crap.. It provides better protection for the illusion of competition.

Re:Let me guess

[BabyDuckHat]

At least one of HP board members, Marc L. Andreessen, also serves on another board. Ebay Inc. in his case.

It would be interesting to make a graph of all the interconnected board members of US corporations. Wouldn't that be a sight.

Re:Let me guess

[countertrolling]

It would be interesting to make a graph of all the interconnected board members of US corporations. Wouldn't that be a sight.

Yep It also includes the government...

Re:Let me guess

[computational super]

You only look like one of those "free market" fanatics.

Yeah! Down with the "free market"! I'd like to see those fanatics name one good thing that has ever come from the so-called "free" market!

Re:Let me guess

[countertrolling]

All depends on your position in the hierarchy... Good for some, shit for others.. And I also forgot to mention the revolving door between government and corporate positions in the GP Oh well... Such is life

not even close to the worst

[waddgodd]

This is the board that hired Carly, setting a new standard for "worst personnel decision". Compared to that, this doesn't even make a blip on the radar.

Re:not even close to the worst

[Anonymous Coward]

Which could be outdone if California elects Carly senator.

Re:not even close to the worst

[jpcarter]

^ this!

Damn. Used last mod point!

Re:not even close to the worst

[nharmon]

Nah. In that case Carly would be an improvement over who they have now.

Why so surprised?

[moosesocks]

'The HP board just made the worst personnel decision since the idiots on the Apple board fired Steve Jobs many years ago,'

I'm surprised Ellision is surprised. The HP board is no stranger to godawful personnel decisions.

He was fired for lying and stealing.

[thesandbender]

Everyone is focusing on the sexual aspects of this. If you read through HP's statements, they fired him because he falsified expense reports (lied) so he could give money to the woman involved for *consulting* services that appeared to have either never been performed or were done so poorly as to be worthless (stole).

HP canned his butt for stealing, plan and simple. It would be idiotic to keep a thief on as your CEO, especially in this political, companies are the root of all evil climate. HP's board did their job in this case.

Re:He was fired for lying and stealing.

[Idiomatick]

I find it confusing more than anything. CEO of HP stealing a free dinner or two is peanuts. It'd be like if you or me stole a grape from a grocery store.

Re:He was fired for lying and stealing.

[alexo]

HP canned his butt for stealing, plan and simple.

And gave him ~50M as punishment for his actions.

Re:He was fired for lying and stealing.

[bledri]

I find it confusing more than anything. CEO of HP stealing a free dinner or two is peanuts. It'd be like if you or me stole a grape from a grocery store.

Well, you don't get rich(er) by spending your own money.

Well, if Larry backs him...

[frank_adrian314159]

If Larry Ellison backs Hurd then he must be his kind of scum - fearless and inventive. Takes one to know one.

Re:Well, if Larry backs him...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well If Larry likes the dude so much he can offer him an Executive position at Oracle

Re:Well, if Larry backs him...

[BitZtream]

Ellison is neither fearless or innovative. Sorry to disappoint you.

He was NOT fired for sexual harrassment

[Anonymous Coward]

From http://bit.ly/98DlLO
"The investigation discovered that Hurd had a "close personal relationship" with a marketing contractor that he did not disclose to the board, Mike Holston, HP's general counsel said. The consultant does not wish to be named, he said.

It also revealed that there were numerous instances where the contractor was paid or reimbursed without performing work. There were also inaccurate expense reports from Hurd meant to hide his personal relationship with the contractor, Holston said. That evidence pointed to "a profound lack of judgment" by Hurd, he said."

Basically, a bunch of overpaid CEOs are shocked and appalled that one of their own could be fired for cause, when they regularly dismiss thousands of employees without cause in order to appease the gods of Wall Street, thus maintaining the value of their stock options.

Re:He was NOT fired for sexual harrassment

[ibsteve2u]

When people whose entire focus is lust - lust for power, lust for wealth - are treated like royalty, it should shock no one when those lusts...expand.

I think the duality in the ethical system in the American workplace is a natural result of corporate America's success at buying whatever they want from Congress - success, even when what they purchase causes grievous harm to the American people and the national interest. The individual who would not self-inflate when their every wish became reality is rare...particularly in corporate America.

So I, at least, am not surprised; I await the day when an American CEO demands the royal prerogative of droit du seigneur.

Surprised?

[Mongoose Disciple]

Really, is anyone surprised that this is Larry Ellison's reaction? (Regardless of the actual details of the allegations or truth of them.)

He's the kind of guy (the bit about him in the Washington Post article linked in TFA speaks to this somewhat, if you're not familiar) who thinks of executives as a kind of new aristocracy, able to do whatever they want and sleep with whichever female employees they want without limit or accountability.

People rag on the quirks tech CEOs like Ballmer and Jobs (and some of it's deserved and/or funny), but Ellison is a honest-to-god king of the douchebags.

FTFY

[RingDev]

Does anyone know if there is hard evidence (heh) proving this guy's guilt? It would be a real shame for this to be a false accusation that gives this man $12 million in cash and $30 to 40 million in stock options...

-Rick

lets see

[FudRucker]

he is guilty of embezzlement and using the money to pay for a prostitute, he is pretty damn lucky to get 28 million and forced to leave, if i had anything to do with it he would be looking at a long prison sentence.

Flamebait mod

[elrous0]

See, you can't even point it out without getting a flamebait mod.

Re:Flamebait mod

[Anonymous Coward]

You were modded flamebait because of the fucking ridiculous strawman you threw up about feminists "running around" "claiming that no woman has ever lied" which is obviously a shrill histrionic fantasy. If you want to make a point, childish exaggeration doesn't help, it gets you modded as flamebait.

Re:Flamebait mod

[Chris Burke]

You mean that you were unable to make your point without it also being flamebait.

When you put an irrationally absolutist statement into other peoples' mouths, you become guilty of the thing you are accusing them of.

Re:Flamebait mod

[Rary]

See, you can't even point it out without getting a flamebait mod.

Oh, come on elrous0, you've been around Slashdot long enough to know that controversial statements generally get modded briefly in one direction at first, then turn around and go fast in the other direction.

Your feminist-bashing was almost the dictionary definition of flamebait, and you got modded so. At the time of this posting, you're up to +3 insightful, and your complaint about being modded flamebait is +4 insightful. This is usually the way it works, and you should know it by now.

Re:Flamebait mod

[computational super]

The internet is being taken over by 19-year-old college kids who know everything because their feminist professors told them so. Keep fighting, and know we're behind you - I can't mod you up because I lost my right to mod points years ago... for downmodding feminist/liberal trolls!

Re:Flamebait mod

[M. Baranczak]

That's "ridiculous strawperson".

Re:Flamebait mod

[hedwards]

It's relevant to the topic at hand. Sexual abuse, domestic violence and rape are crimes which there is a very strong bias against men. Despite no evidence that abusers are male, the conviction rates heavily favor women by not prosecuting spousal abuse committed by women. Additionally, while sexual abuse isn't any more likely to occur to girls than boys there's virtually no resources given to the latter. Same for domestic violence shelters and education.

Sexual harassment suffers the same problem, as since the victim is largely able to define the offense, it's not necessarily always easy to avoid being accused. Sometimes it's even worse where the "victim" is much worse behaved in that respect, but gets the first mover advantage of filing a specious complaint. It's entirely plausible that what a CEO does is technically within the ill defined bounds of sexual harassment, but not what one would normally consider to be wrong.

Re:Flamebait mod

[ryanov]

What, were you born yesterday? Are you really completely unaware of the fact that rape wasn't even really taken seriously until the last 50 years? There is a complete SOCIETAL bias towards men, and for years and years men went on doing whatever they pleased and getting away with it. But no, this is apparently a feminist power trip. I can't even believe the retarded things people are willing to post on the internet.

Re:Flamebait mod

[ryanov]

I know, shame on us for having an education and not being as bigoted and sexist as our predecessors. I mean, fuck, you can't even buy a good slave anymore, can you?

Re:Flamebait mod

[elrous0]

rape wasn't even really taken seriously until the last 50 years?

Bullshit. Rape has been a hanging/death penalty/imprisonment level offense in the west for a very long time now. The only difference is that before the Enlightenment it was viewed as more a crime against a husband or father than a crime against the woman herself. In the early 20th century in the U.S., a woman's accusation of rape could and would get you very much killed very quickly (if you were lucky, they wouldn't burn you alive or torture you first), especially if you were black or an outsider.

Re:Flamebait mod

[elrous0]

And how many of your "educated" brethren stood up for those Duke lacrosse players and urged moderation or cautioned against a rush to judgment when Duke faculty members were actually failing them on their finals in retaliation and putting up wanted posters around campus? Not very fucking many.

You only *think* you're enlightened.

Re:Flamebait mod

[Anonymous Coward]

Your entire first paragraph needs the biggest "citation needed" tag on the planet. Where in the world did you get the ridiculous idea that there is no evidence for sexual abuse, domestic violence, and rape being crimes predominantly committed by men?

Your second paragraph is just ignorant tripe.

Re:Flamebait mod

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody shut down the internet. Game Over. WIN!

Re:Flamebait mod

[ultranova]

I know, shame on us for having an education and not being as bigoted and sexist as our predecessors.

You are, you've just switched targets and think this makes you better.

I mean, fuck, you can't even buy a good slave anymore, can you?

You aren't impressing anyone, you know. Even the free market fundamentalists who claim any deviation from dogma leads to communistic dictatorship have a better point than you. And your mom's a fat whore.

Re:Flamebait mod

[makomk]

You'd be surprised what feminists have said, actually. For example, have you seen Twisty Faster's proposed solution to the problem of rape? It involves giving every women the power to have any man she's had sex with convicted of rape and imprisoned at will. Sleep with a guy and decide a few years later that he's just generally an asshole? Bam, he's a convicted rapist, no defence possible. It's important to note that this isn't some unintended side effect of something more reasonable; giving women the power to declare any man they've had sex with a rapist for any or no reason is the intended purpose.

Of course, neither Twisty Faster nor most of her readers care if these men subsequently get raped repeatedly in prison, because they're male and so that's not real rape.

Now, technically the usual feminist claim isn't that no woman has ever lied about rape - that's patently ridiculous. Instead, they say that we must pretend that women don't lie about rape, that anyone suggesting that we should take into account the possibility that a woman would lie when designing the justice system is a mysogynistic women-hater who's attacking rape victims. Different argument, same effect.

Re:Flamebait mod

[ryanov]

Oh, you mean giving people who blame the victims of sexual discrimination a hard time? Yeah, sounds awful to me.

My mom was thin when she was alive, but thanks for that excellent argument.

Re:Flamebait mod

[ultranova]

Oh, you mean giving people who blame the victims of sexual discrimination a hard time? Yeah, sounds awful to me.

No, I mean automatically assuming that anyone accused of sexual discrimination/harassment/rape/whatever is guilty without evidence. That is awful.

My mom was thin when she was alive, but thanks for that excellent argument.

Yes, it's almost but not quite as stupid as your comment about buying a slave.

Re:Flamebait mod

[ryanov]

No, but that's why you start from proving guilt, not attempting to try the victim. There are ways to do one without the other (for example, not going after someone's sexual history unless it is somehow EXTREMELY relevant).

And no, it really isn't less stupid. The guy is trying to prove that we were better off when rich white men ruled the discourse and when feminists weren't allowed to speak (ignoring the fact, for a moment, than obviously not all professors are women or feminist or even liberal).

Re:Steve Jobs

[mevets]

Woz, is that you? Have you seen the iPods, they are pretty cool.

Larry and RMS too

[tepples]

If Larry Ellison backs Hurd then he must be his kind of scum

Then so must Richard Stallman.

Re:Larry and RMS too

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Stallman is just a lucky dumbass that was in the right place at the right time...

Re:Larry and RMS too

[Anonymous Coward]

If Larry Ellison backs Hurd then he must be his kind of scum

Then so must Richard Stallman.

If only Larry would get RMS a razor.

OT: Speaking of terrible decisions...

[toby]

Sun selling itself into the jaws of the Larrygator will be the end of a truly great engineering company.

elison is a total idiot

[WindBourne]

If anybody believes that this incidence is what causes his firing, they are absolutely stupid. This kind of stuff goes on ALL the time. And it is not enough to get ANY ceo fired in this day and age. Obviously, there is a LOT more behind the story, that HP does not want to come to light. The issue is that this was simply the last straw, or the rest was found during the investigation about this.

Re:Question: Headline test

[b4dc0d3r]

Doesn't matter. Business code of conduct says if it might look bad in a headline, don't do it. HP is a fortune 10 company and in the middle of a pretty big turnaround. The last thing they need is (potential) clients questioning leadership.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/sustainability/hp-ousts-ceo-hurd-fails-the-headline-test/1126

$20k is a much bigger deal than it seems

[sirwired]

The firing wasn't about the amount of the falsification. $20k is indeed chump change for a bazillion-dollar executive. But once you let the CEO get away with blatantly falsifying expense accounts, you've now made theft from the company an acceptable practice. How do you now justify firing an employee for the same thing? Why is it okay for a CEO to steal $20k, but not okay for a peon to do the same? Condoning this behavior is simply not the right thing to do, and can trigger long-term problems with morale and the company culture which can lead to massive losses (and possibly company failure) years down the road.

I'd say there is a 100% chance that any peon that stole $20k would be escorted out of the building by security (and isn't going to receive any cushy severance package either) and possibly brought up on charges.

I applaud HP's board for doing the right thing here and demonstrating the executives are held to the same ethical rules as front-line employees. Yes, it hurt. Yes, Hurd was an otherwise-excellent CEO. Yes, this has cost a lot of short-term pain to the stock price. But some things just aren't right, and churning up $20k in fraudulent expense accounts is one of them. (Wiretapping journalists to find out their sources is another, which HP found out the hard way.) I think HP will be a stronger company down the road as a result.

SirWired

Re:$20k is a much bigger deal than it seems

[couchslug]

"Condoning this behavior is simply not the right thing to do, and can trigger long-term problems with morale and the company culture which can lead to massive losses (and possibly company failure) years down the road."

If fucking up the company culture killed companies, HP would have been long dead due to previous management.

None of the story needed to leak so it would not have mattered had it been kept mum. Someone decided it was useful to exploit for whatever reason, and did so.

Re:$20k is a much bigger deal than it seems

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's almost like you hired a guy to run the Treasury that didn't pay his taxes... I mean that would be insane. No citizen would want to pay their taxes after that!

Thank goodness that's never happened.

Re:$20k is a much bigger deal than it seems

[garutnivore]

Good points. Besides, if the board does not fire him, would they not then be liable to be sued by the shareholders? Maybe there would not be much of a risk in the immediate future but if Hurd were to commit an illegal act again, then the shareholders could claim that the board already had evidence that the CEO could not be trusted to act legally. They could claim that by not firing Hurd the board committed a breach of duty.

Re:$20k is a much bigger deal than it seems

[radtea]

Why is it okay for a CEO to steal $20k, but not okay for a peon to do the same?

For the same reason it is okay for a large failed business to recieve billions in taxpayer support under the Bush/Obama bailout plan but not okay for anyone with an underwater mortgage to walk away from it.

One law for the ultra-rich, one law for the rest. Welcome to America.

Re:$20k is a much bigger deal than it seems

[IICV]

Why is it okay for a CEO to steal $20k, but not okay for a peon to do the same?

It's a matter of perspective. Let's pretend the board has said that having the CEO is worth twenty million dollars a year. If he misappropriates $20,000 worth of company funds, it's equivalent to a peon with a $30k salary stealing $30 worth of office supplies. I'm sure everyone on Slashdot has hit that limit - those post-its and permanent markers add up, you know.

I'm sure things like this happen all the time, and we just don't hear about them because the companies involved don't make a fuss; as another poster pointed out, this is almost certainly an issue because someone else had an axe to grind with him, and the $20k was just an easy way in.

Re:$20k is a much bigger deal than it seems

[david_thornley]

There was a court case around here, quite a few years ago. A woman was fired from a department store for doing exactly what her supervisor was doing. The court ruled that the department store couldn't just fire the woman; they'd also have to fire the supervisor. If the CEO is known to have stolen from the company, that sets a dangerous precedent that could give the company a lot of grief.

Re:$20k is a much bigger deal than it seems

[ShakaUVM]

>>If he misappropriates $20,000 worth of company funds, it's equivalent to a peon with a $30k salary stealing $30 worth of office supplies. I'm sure everyone on Slashdot has hit that limit - those post-its and permanent markers add up, you know.

I have never stolen from an office. I think I found a pen at home once and took it back in the next day. At best you could accuse me of breathing air-conditioned air while not actively working on a job, or something trivial like that.

That said, it should have been easy for him to justify $20k in expenses at his level. Even doing things like giving free rides on your corporate jet (which would otherwise not be used) have come under the microscope these days, but those aren't usually firing expenses. I think it more just had to do with him lying about who he was with on his expenses than the actual dollars.

HP board

[Jodka]

from the linked NY Times article:

“In losing Mark Hurd, the H.P. board failed to act in the best interest of H.P.’s employees, shareholders, customers and partners,” Mr. Ellison wrote.

Even those who side with the HP board in their decision would agree with Mr. Ellison on that point. The issue is not whether the board damaged HP, of course they did, it is whether the greater good of enforcing ethical conduct was served by doing so.

The evidence against him is flimsy

[hessian]

Fisher, an actress who has appeared on the reality TV show "Age of Love" and in softcore porn movies in the 1990s, claimed she felt Hurd pressured her to have sex, according to the San Jose Mercury News. Hurd denied it. Both Hurd and Fisher said there was no sexual relationship.

This looks like classic extortion:

She "felt" he pressured her to have sex?

So one person who probably crazy (actress, reality show) makes an accusation and they fire a quality CEO?

What were they thinking?

Re:The evidence against him is flimsy

[Courageous]

*shrug*

From the various stories and statements, what happened was this: he asked her out, probably more than once. Not a crime, and not really against policy in any corporation. Here's where it gets fuzzy, though. He's the boss-man, and she works for them. It will start to stress a girl out, knowing that he can terminate the business relationship. From her own statement, she did not want him fired, and probably went to HR in order to make the complaint formal so no reprisals would occur. HR isn't always the best way, but some times a girl will feel pressured. Someone in any management position should take great care of asking out anyone over whom one has management influence over, and when making the decision to do so should probably never make a second attempt if the answer is "no".

If you RTFA, you'll see he wasn't fired for any of this, regardless. It was something else, with finances.

C//

Re:The evidence against him is flimsy

[ryanov]

Or, what she said happened is exactly what happened. Or somewhere in the middle. The fact that idiots like you jump directly to "she's a ditzy bimbo, she was probably asking for it" or "what kind of person feels 'pressured' to have sex?" shows you why things are the way they are today.

Larry Ellison is the last CEO I would ask...

[sirwired]

Larry Ellison runs Oracle like his own personal fiefdom. He's very good at what he does, but he's the last person on earth I'd ask for advice on executive boundaries. His attitude fits in very well with Oracle's corporate culture (which he built.) It would be a disaster for HP.

Oracle's board would never fire him for such a thing (could they even do so?), but HP's board was quite right in tossing Hurd to the curb.

HP's board made a tough choice, but in the end, I think it will have proven to be the correct one.

SirWired

Re:Larry Ellison is the last CEO I would ask...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. I would ask Bill Clinton before I ask Larry Ellison.

Re:Larry Ellison is the last CEO I would ask...

[Anonymous Coward]

Larry Ellison runs Oracle like his own personal fiefdom. He's very good at what he does, but he's the last person on earth I'd ask for advice on executive boundaries. His attitude fits in very well with Oracle's corporate culture (which he built.) It would be a disaster for HP.

Oracle's board would never fire him for such a thing (could they even do so?), but HP's board was quite right in tossing Hurd to the curb.

HP's board made a tough choice, but in the end, I think it will have proven to be the correct one.

SirWired

I don't think they could, he owns a large chunck of the stocks and has mostly friends on the board. It would have to be something that really affects Oracles financials and gets the stock owners up in arms against him. Basically a bloody fight.

poor judgement

[Anonymous Coward]

Playing grab ass with some aging wannabe starlet who makes a living by flashing her tits is extraordinarily bad judgment even if he weren't married. Hiding $20K in his expense account to do it - especially at his income level - is even stupider.

He got what he deserved, even if he never managed to get in her pants.

Unemployed?

[hcs_$reboot]

Good. It will give Mr Hurd some time to fix my slow and ink-greedy HP printer.

Re:Unemployed?

[pandrijeczko]

Mr. Hurd probably dines nightly on bottles of vintage champagne that are *STILL* cheaper, litre-by-litre, than HP printer ink!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

CEO and executives *are* the new aristocracy...

[anti-pop-frustration]

They just aren't allowed to say it out loud.

Don't fool yourself. Boards don't give a damn about CEOs and top managers sexually harassing employees (even if it wasn't the case here) and they couldn't care less about expense account abuses (record companies executives anyone? hookers and blow etc.) or about rampant corruption. They only care when any of it goes public, then heads have to roll (damage control and PR bullshit). This is what happened here.

What's the matter, Larry?

[rnturn]

Worried that your board might show you the door?

Rupert Murdoch?

[kimvette]

If Rupert Murdoch is on Hurd's side, Hurd must be a dirtbag. Rupert Murdoch has time and again proven himself to be the slimiest of the slime.

Fired over $5,000?

[phatslaab]

I guarantee that his firing was over falsifying expense reports for only $5,000. I'm sure that 5k is the amount that they will allow to be published but a thief and liar always does much more than what he is actually caught doing. There is probably a long history of 'lapses in judgement'.

Clinton

[Anonymous Coward]

People at this level are in constant competition with others to keep their jobs, and have to force others out. If you make yourself politically weak by doing some jackoff thing like this, it makes it easier to take you out. Here, someone did.

Another example would be President Clinton.

Film at eleven...

[nitehawk214]

Rich assholes stick together. What a shocker.

This is insightful?

[sean.peters]

And thanks to feminists running around claiming that no woman has ever lied about being raped or sexually harassed

[Citation needed]. Please, do tell. Quote me a "feminist" who's running around claiming that no woman has ever lied about this sort of thing. That's all right, I'll wait.

there is pretty much a presumption of guilt now for any such accusation,

This is hardly limited to sexual harassment/rape cases - most people reflexively think that people accused of ANYTHING are probably guilty. There's a reason why grand jury proceedings are secret.

Re:This is insightful?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up. Go back to Digg.

Re:This is insightful?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut the fuck up and go back to sucking dick. Thanks.

Re:This is insightful?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this might not be the same thing and in no way am I saying anything about women, preferably, I'd like to speculate this on 'people' in general.

I run a sporting association, which teaches stretching, tumbling and other forms of calisthenic training. Now, I was recommended to a person by a family (the family has a special needs child who i train, one who has serious physical and mental restrictions). I was informed to "go easy" on this new person as I was told she had minor health issues prior to the training, the special needs child brought her to class. During the class I was also informed she had back problems she sees doctor about regularly. As a result i modified all exercises involving the spine to hold minimum impact and give her the flexibility to push as much or as less as she wants.

The training session went off without a hitch, in fact she complimented me on my classes and told me she would return (even said she'd bring more friends). She spoke with other students and they concur that she was really happy and left with a smile on her face.

A week passes and the people who originally recommended me, called me up, abused me and told me that I am a reckless teacher and that their friend wont talk to them because I pushed too hard.

Being shocked at this feedback I inquired about what the problem was. I.E was it her back? no, no pain in the back (the injured part she warned me about). Did she see a doctor about the pain? no just stayed in bed for a few days. Did the doctor originally clear her for exercise? no, the doctor was unaware she wanted to do anything ... So whats the problem? the answer was, she woke up in the morning and felt sore because she exercised the day before and felt 'trauma'. In short, she's a lazy b**** and had lactic acid build up from years of inactivity and that's somehow my fault. She decided it was good enough to skip a few days off work and made a big fuss to her friend and cause me all sorts of grief.

Legally, im in the clear, I have insurance for students, no proof injury and ofcourse witnesses proving i reduced the training down to its bare basics and gave her the attention she asked for. This little stint taught me a lot about mitigating people more before I train them, the first free class now requires a waiver to be signed (prior to this the waiver was done when the yearly membership was paid, after the 3rd class) but the moral to the story and how it fits in is that people have perceptions of whats good and bad for them, whereas the law has a clear set of guidelines.

This woman could of hired a lawyer and tried to make my life a living hell, she could of even disrupted my reputation and caused my employers / students to seek other trainers by bringing all sorts of negativity forward. None of this happened, thankfully but it shows the power we give absolute assholes of the world who only want to hurt others for their own short comings, rather than holding bad health as their own responsibility they would prefer to blame someone else.

Sex is a physical act (just like sport) the difference is the precursors to having sex holds a much more cerebral foreplay, usually by both parties. The "chase" or cat and mouse game so-to-speak which is associated with the acts of sex brings out far more convoluted ideals and then gets enforced with worse guidelines then what my situation holds.

I go with the virtual fembot sex of the future "as spoken above". I don't think women are totally at fault though but hell sees no fury like a woman's wrath and being the fairer sex they use "mental" attacks to get back at men because of the physical advantages men tend to have over women. Vindictive and corrupt, men and women a like but sexual assault/harassment claims ares defiantly the modern age weapon of thuggery and control.

That's because it is flamebait

[sean.peters]

You just put up a completely ludicrous feminist-bashing post, with little ground in reality, and then got a flamebait mod? You could knock me over with a feather.

Nasty people

[Kupfernigk]

Some nasty comments on this thread. I've worked for a (US) company where the management basically decided to get rid of two very competent VPs and came up with some very trumped up charges, so I know that dirty office politics is often more to blame than anything else. This smells of excuses, not a cover up.

A quick look at the HP share price also suggests what a lot of influential people may think; the sudden fall off the side of a cliff suggests a perception that either this is seen as a bad move which will affect future earnings, whether it is seen as reflecting on the competence of the remaining HP Board, or the probability of their finding an adequate replacement.

For one thing

[sean.peters]

Who the hell cares what Larry Ellison thinks about this matter? Is he on HP's board? Is he a major HP investor? No? Then, Larry, STFU.

Also, sure, he was cleared of the harassment charge. He wasn't, however, cleared of the charge that he freaking stole $20k from the company by using fraudulent travel claims. I really can't see that this qualifies as the outrage of the week.

Re:For one thing

[BobMcD]

If you didn't care, why not just ignore it, rather than go the 'STFU' route? Unless you care also, if only because others do.

The real reason:

[lotho brandybuck]

High priced party consultant: $20k

Severance Pay: $40M Not having to live through the consequences of accidently buying a behind the curve smartphone manufacturer, and having your CEO buddies think you were booted for sexy stuff: Priceless.

Re:The real reason:

[spire3661]

I think you underestimate the importance of Palm and WebOS. There is NOTHING behind the curve about WebOS's functionally. Its a joy to use compared to iOS.

Re:The real reason:

[Phantom Gremlin]

I think you underestimate the importance of Palm and WebOS. There is NOTHING behind the curve about WebOS's functionally. Its a joy to use compared to iOS.

Okay, it's days later so my comment won't be read by too many people. But I wanted to respond, since maybe you'll see it.

My answer to your praise about WebOS is: "so what?"

The real question is: will HP be able to monetize what they bought? Will they be able to profit from this purchase? I wager 1000 quatloos that HP will fail miserably!

Therefore, by definition (by my definition anway), the "importance" of WebOS to HP is just about zero. In fact its value is negative since the purchase price will never be recovered and since the acquisition will divert HP focus and resources from other endeavors.

$40 million exit strategy

[2centplain]

How many Slashdot readers would change places with Hurd at this time? How could any of us ever get to quit a job and walk away with $40M?

CEO should concentrate on F$%^king the customers

[strangeattraction]

Not employees or contractors. That is the first thing you learn in business school.

Hurd

[slapout]

Great, now we'll never get to see the GNU Hurd completed....oh, wait

Same here.

[Anonymous Coward]

I was sexually harassed a few years ago by an older woman at work. I'm a man and it made going to work a terrible experience. Fortunately for me, there were trails back to her which included some harassment emails and texts from her. I printed out the company definition of "harassment" and handed it to her so there wouldn't be any confusion. Her phone calls to my home and other unwanted advances continued. Since she didn't stop, so I spoke with her manager and provided the evidence. Her manager talked with her and then transfered the woman to a different location. I never saw her again. I heard she was let go a few months later. I remained there for another 6 years until I elected to leave.

Company management knew what happened and took the steps necessary. If they hadn't, I probably would simply have left the job - I'm highly skilled and employable. I could have sued the company due to this and they recognized their responsibility. HP saw it too.

At the same company where I was harassed, I've seen a Sr Director leave after making advances towards a contractor - there was an email trail. I liked the guy as a person, but could easily see him doing what had been alleged. A few years later, I saw him at an industry conference. He said that his new job sucked and that he missed the old job, prestige, power and money. In big companies - 60k+ employees, this sort of thing happens, I guess.

New slang

[alcmaeon]

Is "state of the art data center" new slang for "penis"?

Hurd an Excellent CEO???

[BurfCurse]

I've read numerous statements claiming that Hurd was an "excellent" CEO. That depends on the perspective. From a shareholder's viewpoint, he was a terrific CEO. From the employee's viewpoint, who all (exempt employees) took a 5% and many took upwards of 20 to 25% pay cut, he was a terrible CEO. Imagine the fury of the employees that took 25% pay cuts hearing that Hurd got to keep his job after stealing $20,000 from the company. Moral at HP is bad enough.

Ellison is an idiot.

[EmagGeek]

Hurd STOLE from the company. He deserved to be fired just like any other employee.

without limit?

[doug141]

What should the limit be on sleeping with female employees?

Re:without limit?

[ryanov]

Consent would be a good place to start. :)

Re:without limit?

[Mongoose Disciple]

I'm glad you asked: More than two at a time is considered gauche. :)

Mark Hurd is Irrelevant - The Challenge for HP

[Bruce Perens]

Mark Hurd's silly exit has little to do with HP's real problems. As an executive there about a decade ago, I saw a company that was giving up its differentiating value in the name of operational savings, not realizing that by now the Golden Goose of creativity would find greener pastures. But surprisingly, the classic HP tradition of building a great place to do engineering that results in a flood of excellent creative products is being followed...

Read the rest of the posting.

Re:Mark Hurd is Irrelevant - The Challenge for HP

[Anonymous Coward]

Bruce Perens with a f'cking link to an external blog ? Wtf ?

You are an impostor. You are obviously lack a '.' at the end of your name.

Will the real Bruce Perens please stand up ?

[for humor impaired -- this post is for old slashdotters]

Larry and Rupert are wrong

[blair1q]

Hurd is a common scofflaw and thief, and has no right to run a $100 Billion corporation.

The fact that he's also a douchebag just made it easier for HP's board to put him in a position to blow his stack and his career.

The market has spoken

[Locke2005]

Firing Hurd was a bad idea. Other than paying corporate funds to a cute woman who didn't earn them, I still not clear on what Hurd did. But I'm sure it is far less than what Larry Ellison or Larry Michaels (CEO of the original SCO) have gotten away with.

Re:The market has spoken

[Anonymous Coward]

The market would gladly sell your mother for $5 a go if it could.

"The Market Has Spoken" is like saying you should worship the monkey god because the chimp didn't blow your head off when you handed it a pistol.

Re:The market has spoken

[minchazo]

'The market' as you call it, is short sighted and lacks vision. It doesn't take into account how this firing can set a precedent for future executive characteristics at HP.

I know what he should have said

[NotSoHeavyD3]

He should have said that he thought this was the worst train of thought since his crazy idea of network computers replacing desktops in the mid 90's.

Not a strawman

[Anonymous Coward]

It comes from the statement gloria steinem made decades ago, that all men are rapists or potential rapists (paraphrased, don't remember it exactly, but it was a really big deal when she said it). It's been part of the politically correct "feminist" doctrine ever since. It carries over into the courts, say divorce and child custody hearings, men are routinely accused of being child abusers, etc. That's just bog standard normal divorce action dirty tricks. And now in business, routinely accuse some random boss of harassment. Another normal tactic used by less than ethical women and their lawyers and advocates.

And it sucks, because there always has been a lot of discrimination and abuse, but taking it into lying as a normal tactic has gotten out of hand, and that first accusation can "stick" pretty hard.

Re:Not a strawman

[Anonymous Coward]

It comes from the statement gloria steinem made decades ago, that all men are rapists or potential rapists (paraphrased, don't remember it exactly, but it was a really big deal when she said it). It's been part of the politically correct "feminist" doctrine ever since.

The phrase "all men are rapists" is actually usually attributed to Marilyn French, although even that is incorrect, as it was actually spoken by a fictional character in one of her novels, not by French herself.

The idea that "all men are potential" rapists is part of radical feminism, which is only one faction of feminism, and by no means represents "politically correct 'feminist' doctrine". All too often people assume that "feminism" is a single body of thought, but it is actually quite diverse. Not all feminists hold the "all men are potential rapists" ideal.

Nevertheless, the radical feminist idea of men as potential rapists is widely misunderstood. It does not mean that you, as an individual man, are a potential rapist. It means (overly simplified) that modern patriarchal society socializes men to become rapists. It is a condemnation of societal structures, not men as a sex, nor individuals.

Of course, nobody bothers to learn about these things in order to accept them or criticize them rationally. It's much easier to attack soundbites.

Re:Not a strawman

[mrrudge]

"All men are rapists, and that's all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws and their codes."

It's a soundbite which is deliberately offensive, which takes the worst aspects of a very small minority of a large group of people ( men ) and extrapolates it to create some kind of modern original sin, of which I am seen as potentially guilty of a horrible crime based sorely on my gender.

It's pure sexism, whether it's aimed at the society which encompasses me, or me directly ( Both in the full quote above ).

Were I to start a movement of radical menism, which included the idea that all women were whores, and only whores ( not you personally, of course, I just mean the society which includes you, your mother and your sister ) then I'd expect condemnation for it, I'd expect anger, and I'd expect people not to really research it because it's not reason, it's a baseless attack.

That feminism in general would be in any way associated with such bigotry is unfortunate, it does nothing for equality, it affects real rapists not at all and so very badly insults most men.

Marilyn French was an angry woman who was married to an abusive man for seventeen years. She possibly had a right to be angry.

At him.

Re:Not a strawman

[Anonymous Coward]

Nevertheless, the radical feminist idea of men as potential rapists is widely misunderstood. It does not mean that you, as an individual man, are a potential rapist. It means (overly simplified) that modern patriarchal society socializes men to become rapists. It is a condemnation of societal structures, not men as a sex, nor individuals.

As a man socialized by the modern patriarchal society, I fail to see the difference.

Re:Not a strawman

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, the quote you reference is spoken not by French, but by a character in a fictional novel:

Following the rape of Val's daughter Chris, Val states (over Mira's protests), "Whatever they may be in public life, whatever their relationships with men, in their relationships with women, all men are rapists, and that's all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes" (p. 433). Critics have sometimes quoted Val's dialogue as evidence of French's misandry without noting that the passage is only spoken by one of many characters in the novel. Mira later ends her relationship with Ben after finding out that he expects her to return to Lianu with him and have a child together. Soon after, she finds out that Val has been shot following a violent protest at the trial of a rape victim.

Also:

Its instant popularity brought criticism from some well known feminists that it was too pessimistic about women's lives and too anti men.

Re:Not a strawman

[mrrudge]

They were written by French as fiction, and taken by radical feminism as truth. It doesn't change my argument.

Re:Not a strawman

[mrrudge]

My grandmother 'rose up' from the traditional kitchen and marched to London for equal rights for women, in her drifting final days she revisited this often, it was still very vivid for her and she felt she'd done something important. I agree.

The large battles for equality have been won. There's still a discrepancy in pay, there's still a shortage of women in power, but no clear way to balance this. Sweden has stipulated a gender split for company boards and the like, and it often results in inappropriate appointments entirely to conform to this rule. It results in people being promoted based on their gender, not their skills, which is bad for business, and bad for the person who just got ignored because they have the wrong genitals.

'Too anti men' implies that some 'anti men' is ok for feminists.

Basing any judgement on gender is the problem we're trying to solve, right ?

Fiorina - What Happened?

[BigSes]

This whole thread is chocked full of, as are most threads about HP's management and Board of Directors, of cuts against Carly Fiorina. When I was still in business school taking management/marketing core courses back in about 2002-2004, all we ever heard about from multiple professors was how great she was as a CEO. "Carly Fiorina revolutionized this, created this new management style, blah blah blah" Literally, she was the topic of countless lectures and readings.

I haven't follow much news upto and including her departure from HP, other than she was ill with cancer of some type at some point. What did I miss that she did wrong with HP? I had no idea she ran the company into the ground, as its said so often on Slashdot.

Ellison's an Idiot

[ktippetts]

So what he's saying is that HP shouldn't enforce it's standards of business conduct even when the HP CEO breaks them? Interesting. Hm. Goes to show you the kind of person Ellison is...dollars over integrity. And that's what the problem is with all of society. I'm just glad that HP's board values integrity over the almighty dollar. They have set an example for the rest of the industry. My guess is that no other company but HP has the guts to stand up for it's values and it's integrity. Obviously the Oracle board doesn't, if the "No stranger himself to sexual harassment allegations" statement is to be believed.

Re:Ellison's an Idiot

[ktippetts]

Just a follow-up. I think this statement by Ellison also shows his commitment to his employees -- basically zero. What Ellison doesn't realize is that he did not single-handedly build Oracle. Jobs did not single-handedly build Apple, and Hurd did not single-handedly build HP. They all had a group of dedicated and committed employees that did it. So I feel sorry for Oracle employees -- sorry that your CEO can't see your contributions because his big inflated ego gets in the way.

LOL!

[toby]

once you let the CEO get away with blatantly falsifying expense accounts, you've now made theft from the company an acceptable practice

Are you trying to pretend there is a single company wide standard for this?

Life at the top of the American corporation is all about tacit embezzlement. The ultimate? CEO pay.

winkienomics

[epine]

Man, you must have skipped your sociobiology classes, whatever they call it lately. Women bear the brunt of reproductive cost. And due to male insecurity over paternal certainty, even if the rape doesn't lead to an unwanted pregnancy, the woman feels (legitimately) devalued as a mating prospect. Males justify this attitude of blaming the victim with an internal Mel Gibson voice-over (she was asking for it).

On the male side of the reproductive coin, the worst case scenario is paying support for a child that isn't even yours, and that you can't actually visit, and won't love you enough to check you into rehab if you falter in middle age. See How DNA Testing Is Changing Fatherhood. The courts presently have little problem with this, despite its historical demographic slant, and I've yet to read a feminist complaint on this front.

India has also caught the bug. See Don't do paternity test routinely. The previous article argues in favour of precisely this measure.

I don't get the Hurd controversy. America basically impeached the smartest man in American politics since Robert McNamara and there was never a hint of harassment. Over what? Bad judgement concerning small sums of money that wouldn't even top up a petty change jar in the sexually enlightened nation of France.

Mark's obligation to the HP shareholder was to single-source his lechery, or nix his duplicity. Fail to pass elementary skill testing question, do not pass GO multiple times, nor collect over $50m in bonuses.

Hurd?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure there's a vapourware joke in here somewhere...

Absence of evidence

[Kim0]

The crucial point that all these hysterical anti-rapists avoid totally, is the difficulty of knowing whether the sex is consensual or a rape.

After all, the defined difference is just in the head of the woman. Only she can really know if she wants it or not, and if this information is not reliably transmitted outside of her mind, it is simply not possible to know if it is a rape or not.

And the hysterical anti-rapists never ever tell realistically how people are supposed to know this reliably, while at the same time accusing people of knowing it and ignoring it.

This is logically inconsistent, and one reason I call it hysterics.

One cannot stop a rape if one does not know if it is a rape, whether one is a bystander or a rapist.

Sexual harassment & filing falsified expense r

[hardcache]

The case against Hurd - sexual harassment claim by Jodie Fisher and falsified expense reports to hide his relationship with Ms. Fisher. Falsified expense reports in itself is grounds for termination - anyone less than an executive would not be given the opportunity to resign but be fired. Look at this from 10,000 feet away - hot blonde with Political Science Degree has no business escorting a popular and charismatic CEO to these CEO executive summit meetings. We should shortly hear from Hurd's wife.