I wonder if the more important part of this is that he will "oversee the company's intellectual property" - maybe defending against all those patent cases being filed against Apple? I don't know if that's one of his areas of expertise, but if it is that would be good.
(And I can't wait to see him playing onstage to close out the next Macworld).
Poaching as regards hunting or business implies something illegal or unethical. There is nothing in the content of Kasper's post (nor in the law.com item - in fact Kasper added the term "lure") that supports anything illegal or unethical on the part of Apple. I was making a play on one of the closer meanings of the word, pointing that out.
Calm down.
I'm not mad at you, I was parodying your post.
In the business context, "poaching" is not illegal or necessarily unethical. All it means is that you hired someone from a competitor. It's not necessarily obscure jargon either, at least in business. I've even found a CNN Money story on the subject.
Hope he's worth it. But I sure do hope he doesn't talk Apple into some "strategic acquisition": HP-Compaq was an unmitigated disaster.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "was." I was at the shareholder's meeting held at HP wrt the Compaq merger, and Carley Fiorino talked at great length at the problems that lay ahead (e.g. one was an e-mail culture and the other a phone culture). They knew going in that it would take a few years to combine the cultures, longer than the businesses per se. The irony is that it wasn't until a year or so after CF's departure that HPQ saw the light at the end of the tunnel. My take is that HP got exactly what it wanted (and expected), and is probably pleased (now) with the result (although probably not with the pain). And I doubt that he talked HP into that "strategic acquisition", nor that he goaded CF into micromanaging the resulting merged companies.
In the business context, "poaching" is not illegal or necessarily unethical. All it means is that you hired someone from a competitor. It's not necessarily obscure jargon either, at least in business. I've even found a CNN Money story on the subject.
Was "If you can't adjust to that, maybe you need to learn and use some other language. I'm not sure if such a language exists though." part of the parody or just an attack?
Please. They offered the guy a job and he took it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Poaching is very different from hiring. Another misleading "Faux News"-style headline. Can we reign these in a bit?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpellino
Poaching as regards hunting or business implies something illegal or unethical.
This is an oft used, coluorful term to describe this exact event. It's ironic that Dictionay.app uses an example sentence about companies poaching from other companies.
poach |poʊtʃ| |pəʊtʃ|
verb [ trans. ]
? take or acquire in an unfair or clandestine way : employers risk having their newly trained workers poached by other companies.
Speaking of poaching, I think someone has egg on their face.
This is an oft used, coluorful term to describe this exact event. It's ironic that Dictionay.app uses an example sentence about companies poaching from other companies.
poach |poʊtʃ| |pəʊtʃ|
verb [ trans. ]
? take or acquire in an unfair or clandestine way : employers risk having their newly trained workers poached by other companies.
Speaking of poaching, I think someone has egg on their face.
If poaching was indeed involved, I wouldn't mind being directed to some indisputable evidence. Otherwise, it's just, like... your opinion, man.
Makes me wonder if Apple are considering an acquisition of some significant size ...
... Sony, Adobe, IBM ... or maybe Dell so they can give the shares back? ... just kidding but fun speculating
That is what I was thinking, too. Could Apple have been saving their reserves to make a massive acquisition? What would be their primary target, the Enterprise? If they were going to make a major movie for the Enterprise what major player would they want?
Sony is out of the question, I think Adobe isn't going to happen, and Dell would be possible, but I see simple solution for using them to push Apple up.
If poaching was indeed involved, I wouldn't mind being directed to some indisputable evidence. Otherwise, it's just, like... your opinion, man.
The article implies that Apple sought out Charnas, not the other way around. You'll find that this isn't just acceptable, but one of most common terms for describing this occurrence.
In my younger days I was a network admin for a "big wig" headhunter* corp. The whole business was monitoring corporate officers around the world. There were "super secret" meetings and hefty bonuses involved when luring them away from other companies. Sometimes because they wanted that individual, sometimes because they simply didn't want their competitor to have them. There was a lot of skullduggery all around.
* Before I get attacked for using 'headhunter' note that it doesn't literally mean to collect heads in this sense. Like 'poach' it is a colloquial term. Both senses of 'headhunter' will be found in any reputable dictionary.
Is that how it works? Will he be trying to talk Apple into something or will he just be the
person to carry out the desires of the executives and board members above him in the
hierarchy?
Lawyers have a rather important say in the affairs of corporate America -- more than one knows, or would like. I honestly do not think it is much of an issue when SJ is around, but after that who knows.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney
HP was around eighteenish in 2002 when it merged with Compaq and it is around 45
now, so I would have to say the disaster has been mitigated somewhat.
I am afraid that is a somewhat spurious argument. For all we know, without Compaq, it could have been selling at $90 now. We do know that, when tech was back on track after the downturn of 2001-02, HP was seriously lagging its peers. It was not until Mark Hurd arrived a couple of years ago (and brought HP back to its basics, i.e., its printer business) that the stock started to trend up significantly again.
The "unmitigated disaster" thing hasn't been my impression at all. In fact HP has been doing quite well in the market since acquiring Compaq--consistently nipping at Dell's heels and sometimes pulling ahead-- and the Compaq shot in the arm seems to me to be a major reason.
There's no way to know that they couldn't be even better. Don't forget that they had a pretty darn good PC business prior to Compaq.
Please, don't try and act like a journalist if you can't take reader criticism.
I do have to broadly agree with that sentiment: journalism is a tough business these days, and you have to be able to take it on the chin. No one, not even the traditionally great media brand names (or bylines) is immune. That's the nature of the beast. It just seems to come with the territory, AI!
But look at the bright side: It means that you have arrived!
The article implies that Apple sought out Charnas, not the other way around. You'll find that this isn't just acceptable, but one of most common terms for describing this occurrence.
The article does not imply that. It states only that:
"The top corporate lawyer at Hewlett-Packard has joined Apple."
This is very neutral in comparison to the Cooperman article that said that Jobs personally wooed Cooperman. And note that Apple did not poach Cooperman either. Jobs cleared it with Ellison first.
There is also nothing in the article that suggests that Apple "sought out and lured away with incentives" Charnas as Kasper states.
Charnas was passed over for GC when HP hired Holston. After 18 years, 6 years as deputy GC and being the acting GC, Charnas was not likely to ever make GC even if Holston left. Perhaps he was dissapointed. Perhaps he doesn't get along with Holston. Perhaps Holston wants his own guy/gal as deputy GC. Perhaps Holston and Hurd simply marginalized Charnas. Perhaps Cooperman really did seek out Charnas with incentives.
There's no indication for any of these scenarios. Hence:
"The top corporate lawyer at Hewlett-Packard has joined Apple."
Given Jobs behavior with Cooperman, poaching is unlikely even if he isn't buddy buddy with Hurd like he is with Ellison. As stated above, there are many potential reasons that Charnas may have been looking.
Kasper needs to get a thicker skin because his byline was sensationalist and irresponsible and it has been picked up by other sites that did not later correct the title.
And I would think that The Recorder is more likely to have the juicy gossip from the HP and Apple legal departments than AI. Given they were playing this one pretty neutral that's a good indicator that only the principals know the details right now.
Comments
(And I can't wait to see him playing onstage to close out the next Macworld).
Poaching as regards hunting or business implies something illegal or unethical. There is nothing in the content of Kasper's post (nor in the law.com item - in fact Kasper added the term "lure") that supports anything illegal or unethical on the part of Apple. I was making a play on one of the closer meanings of the word, pointing that out.
Calm down.
I'm not mad at you, I was parodying your post.
In the business context, "poaching" is not illegal or necessarily unethical. All it means is that you hired someone from a competitor. It's not necessarily obscure jargon either, at least in business. I've even found a CNN Money story on the subject.
Everybody have a great weekend!
Everyone's doin' it!
Hope he's worth it. But I sure do hope he doesn't talk Apple into some "strategic acquisition": HP-Compaq was an unmitigated disaster.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "was." I was at the shareholder's meeting held at HP wrt the Compaq merger, and Carley Fiorino talked at great length at the problems that lay ahead (e.g. one was an e-mail culture and the other a phone culture). They knew going in that it would take a few years to combine the cultures, longer than the businesses per se. The irony is that it wasn't until a year or so after CF's departure that HPQ saw the light at the end of the tunnel. My take is that HP got exactly what it wanted (and expected), and is probably pleased (now) with the result (although probably not with the pain). And I doubt that he talked HP into that "strategic acquisition", nor that he goaded CF into micromanaging the resulting merged companies.
I'm not mad at you, I was parodying your post.
In the business context, "poaching" is not illegal or necessarily unethical. All it means is that you hired someone from a competitor. It's not necessarily obscure jargon either, at least in business. I've even found a CNN Money story on the subject.
Was "If you can't adjust to that, maybe you need to learn and use some other language. I'm not sure if such a language exists though." part of the parody or just an attack?
Doesn't HP have a lower market share now than HP + Compaq did combined before the merger?
I don't know, but it's not really relevant. The question is whether buying Compaq was worth it for HP, and the answer, to me, seems to be yes.
... Sony, Adobe, IBM ... or maybe Dell so they can give the shares back? ... just kidding but fun speculating
Please. They offered the guy a job and he took it.
Poaching is very different from hiring. Another misleading "Faux News"-style headline. Can we reign these in a bit?
Poaching as regards hunting or business implies something illegal or unethical.
This is an oft used, coluorful term to describe this exact event. It's ironic that Dictionay.app uses an example sentence about companies poaching from other companies.Speaking of poaching, I think someone has egg on their face.
This is an oft used, coluorful term to describe this exact event. It's ironic that Dictionay.app uses an example sentence about companies poaching from other companies.Speaking of poaching, I think someone has egg on their face.
If poaching was indeed involved, I wouldn't mind being directed to some indisputable evidence. Otherwise, it's just, like... your opinion, man.
Makes me wonder if Apple are considering an acquisition of some significant size ...
... Sony, Adobe, IBM ... or maybe Dell so they can give the shares back? ... just kidding but fun speculating
That is what I was thinking, too. Could Apple have been saving their reserves to make a massive acquisition? What would be their primary target, the Enterprise? If they were going to make a major movie for the Enterprise what major player would they want?
Sony is out of the question, I think Adobe isn't going to happen, and Dell would be possible, but I see simple solution for using them to push Apple up.
If poaching was indeed involved, I wouldn't mind being directed to some indisputable evidence. Otherwise, it's just, like... your opinion, man.
The article implies that Apple sought out Charnas, not the other way around. You'll find that this isn't just acceptable, but one of most common terms for describing this occurrence.
In my younger days I was a network admin for a "big wig" headhunter* corp. The whole business was monitoring corporate officers around the world. There were "super secret" meetings and hefty bonuses involved when luring them away from other companies. Sometimes because they wanted that individual, sometimes because they simply didn't want their competitor to have them. There was a lot of skullduggery all around.
* Before I get attacked for using 'headhunter' note that it doesn't literally mean to collect heads in this sense. Like 'poach' it is a colloquial term. Both senses of 'headhunter' will be found in any reputable dictionary.
Is that how it works? Will he be trying to talk Apple into something or will he just be the
person to carry out the desires of the executives and board members above him in the
hierarchy?
Lawyers have a rather important say in the affairs of corporate America -- more than one knows, or would like. I honestly do not think it is much of an issue when SJ is around, but after that who knows.....
HP was around eighteenish in 2002 when it merged with Compaq and it is around 45
now, so I would have to say the disaster has been mitigated somewhat.
I am afraid that is a somewhat spurious argument. For all we know, without Compaq, it could have been selling at $90 now. We do know that, when tech was back on track after the downturn of 2001-02, HP was seriously lagging its peers. It was not until Mark Hurd arrived a couple of years ago (and brought HP back to its basics, i.e., its printer business) that the stock started to trend up significantly again.
I don't know, but it's not really relevant. The question is whether buying Compaq was worth it for HP, and the answer, to me, seems to be yes.
"Worth it" using what metric?
The "unmitigated disaster" thing hasn't been my impression at all. In fact HP has been doing quite well in the market since acquiring Compaq--consistently nipping at Dell's heels and sometimes pulling ahead-- and the Compaq shot in the arm seems to me to be a major reason.
There's no way to know that they couldn't be even better. Don't forget that they had a pretty darn good PC business prior to Compaq.
Please, don't try and act like a journalist if you can't take reader criticism.
I do have to broadly agree with that sentiment: journalism is a tough business these days, and you have to be able to take it on the chin. No one, not even the traditionally great media brand names (or bylines) is immune. That's the nature of the beast. It just seems to come with the territory, AI!
But look at the bright side: It means that you have arrived!
Now, just keep up the great work.
The article implies that Apple sought out Charnas, not the other way around. You'll find that this isn't just acceptable, but one of most common terms for describing this occurrence.
The article does not imply that. It states only that:
"The top corporate lawyer at Hewlett-Packard has joined Apple."
This is very neutral in comparison to the Cooperman article that said that Jobs personally wooed Cooperman. And note that Apple did not poach Cooperman either. Jobs cleared it with Ellison first.
There is also nothing in the article that suggests that Apple "sought out and lured away with incentives" Charnas as Kasper states.
Charnas was passed over for GC when HP hired Holston. After 18 years, 6 years as deputy GC and being the acting GC, Charnas was not likely to ever make GC even if Holston left. Perhaps he was dissapointed. Perhaps he doesn't get along with Holston. Perhaps Holston wants his own guy/gal as deputy GC. Perhaps Holston and Hurd simply marginalized Charnas. Perhaps Cooperman really did seek out Charnas with incentives.
There's no indication for any of these scenarios. Hence:
"The top corporate lawyer at Hewlett-Packard has joined Apple."
Given Jobs behavior with Cooperman, poaching is unlikely even if he isn't buddy buddy with Hurd like he is with Ellison. As stated above, there are many potential reasons that Charnas may have been looking.
Kasper needs to get a thicker skin because his byline was sensationalist and irresponsible and it has been picked up by other sites that did not later correct the title.
And I would think that The Recorder is more likely to have the juicy gossip from the HP and Apple legal departments than AI. Given they were playing this one pretty neutral that's a good indicator that only the principals know the details right now.
The article does not imply that.
I beg to differ.
[...] luring Hewlett-Packard's top corporate lawyer [...]
I am referring to this article. If a poster wishes to use a difference source for comparison then they need to specify that and post the source link.
I beg to differ.
I am referring to this article. If a poster wishes to use a difference source for comparison then they need to specify that and post the source link.
How about the one that AppleInsider references as their source?
You know that reference in the first sentence and the link in the second sentence?
That Kasper choose to sensationalize it doesn't make it any more true than...the mini being cancelled.
How about the one that AppleInsider references as their source?
You know that reference in the first sentence and the link in the second sentence?
Gotcha. That is in the main page. I tend to stay in the forum. Why the hyper link doesn't carry over is beyond me.
Gotcha. That is in the main page. I tend to stay in the forum. Why the hyper link doesn't carry over is beyond me.
Yah, I dunno. It does make it harder to see what they got themselves and what they are repeating from somewhere else.