Huibert-Aalbers.com

I was recently listening to the HP press conference where CEO Mark Hurd announced that Chairman Partricia Dunn had resigned her position as a result of the scandal provoked by the spying of journalists in order to obtain the source of leaks within HPs board of Directors.

It is clear to me that Patricia Dunn had the obligation to investigate the leaks. In this particular case, the disclosed information was highly sensitive, the strategic plan that HP had designed for the next year or so. The information published by CNET and others effectively disrupted HP plans by giving valuable information to their competitors with enough time to counter their initiatives.

We now know that the information was delivered to the media by a board member. The journalists must have been aware of the damage they were causing to the company and that they were used as a tool to harm HP. I remember that someone one once said that he could not define pornography but that he could easily recognize it. Something similar happened in this case. As you probably know, I work for IBM, a direct HP competitor in many markets. I felt very uncomfortable when reading the original report published by CNET and the journalists that published this information must have felt that too. Unlike Apple which generates a lot of interest among the general public, HP products rarely generate a lot of buzz. The uncovered information was really only interesting to competitors. Analysts and Investors did not benefit from the report as many of the plans mentioned in the articles will have to be changed now that they are public knowledge.

The resignation of Patricia Dunn is clearly the result of journalists claiming for blood. It is true that the methods used by the security consultants hired by HP to undercover the source leak are very questionable. It is also true, however, that the journalists should have understood the clear difference between news and industrial espionage. I blame both sides and I would like to see a public apology from their part too, acknowledging that they helped a criminal commit his crime. This is not likely to happen. Some bad journalists like to hide themselves behind the freedom of the press to publish questionable information. We must not fool ourselves, this is not the case here. They were not protecting a whistle blower, they were protecting a criminal. Shame on them.

Now that we have seen what kind of damage the leak of confidential information can cause to a large corporation it may be the right time to talk again about the secrets that trickle from Apple headquarters. I know that many will claim that the situation is totally different. In this case, the general public is interested in knowing what new products Apple will release. Besides, Apple rumor sites usually disclose information just a few days in advance, effectively spoiling the Apple announcements but not really impacting their business. But is that really true? Recently a rumor site announced that new Apple laptops would be launched on September 25th. They were wrong, but I have a friend who delayed its Mac Book Pro purchase because of that. He still hasn’t bought it because now there is another rumor that the new laptops will be released any day now since stocks of existing products are very low. His behavior may not be common among mainstream Mac users but even if he represents five percent of Mac users, it becomes clear that such articles do impact sales.

The main difference between the HP as well as other corporate stories and the Apple stories published on the Internet is that Apple rumors are often false and everyone is well aware of that. We Mac users enjoy talking about unannounced products, and for many this is a sort of entertainment. However, we should not be surprised to see Apple act against these rumors because they really hurt their business.