Nickname: mick

Review: Just shows how skanky the whole board echelon really is. Evil, upper class twits.

Date reviewed: Sep 12, 2006 2:33 AM

Nickname: jon

Review: Law says clearly about Regulation FD. The wrongdoers are one BOD and all of the journalists involved. It's damn wrong for one BOD to broadcast the insider info to few selected jounalists while rest of the investing public are excluded.

Date reviewed: Sep 11, 2006 9:10 PM

Nickname: HP Watcher

Review: Directors are honor bound to participate in sensitive inside discussions and maintain their complete confidentiality. Corporations are honor bound to employ only the most ethical and legal means in pursuing their businesses, including monitoring the handling of sensitive information by directors and employees. Officers of the stature of Ann Baskins and the company's Chairman, Patty Dunn, are responsible for ensuring that both standards are met. Clearly, they need to do so and should step down. If they don't voluntarily resign, the board should demand their departures.

Date reviewed: Sep 11, 2006 5:14 PM

Nickname: broncoswin01

Review: I echo the comments above. Why isn't BW focusing on why the board is leaking info? Maybe because they don't want the pipeline of illegal information cut off? You can't have it both ways people!

Date reviewed: Sep 11, 2006 1:17 PM

Nickname: pete

Review: I, too, am amazed that others condone HP's breaking the law. It doesn't matter if it was done by a contractor to a contractor. If someone hired someone else to hire a 3rd person to commit a murder, the first person would be tried for murder. So what's the difference?

Date reviewed: Sep 11, 2006 8:21 AM

Nickname: HPer

Review: Patricia Dunn should resign. I don't care whether technically HP broke the law or not. The board's action is morally bankrupt. At HP we have to take Standards of Business Conduct training every year. What this tells HP rank and file is that the board/company is telling us "do what I say, but not what I do." The entire board should resign and let's re-elect Perkins to the board! Shame on you, HP!

Date reviewed: Sep 11, 2006 12:37 AM

Nickname: johnb

Review: So, it's OK for BW to publish information that is known only to insiders, that it knows have no business leaking to the press? BW's focus is all wrong here. It should be on shutting down people like this who leak information. If you are on the board of a major company, you should not be out there placing information into journalists' hands to further your cause; you should be protecting the company and saying nothing you weren't officially allowed to say. If an employee did this they would be fired outright.

Date reviewed: Sep 10, 2006 9:25 PM

Nickname: mick

Review: All HP employees are mandated to take a company-sponsored course each year on HP's strict code of ethics. I have known several colleagues who were fired for violating this code. Guess it's a different world at the top, though. Some seem "more equal than others," eh? This turns my stomach.

Date reviewed: Sep 9, 2006 11:24 PM

Nickname: jqool

Review: Ethics are subjective. Dunn did nothing wrong. Ethics should never be taught or dictated.

Date reviewed: Sep 9, 2006 8:59 PM

Nickname: exHP

Review: It would indeed be tragic if Pattie Dunn became the scapegoat in this whole affair. It would miss the two underlying problems that HPQ had--the board leakage and the investigation carried out by the offices of Anne Baskins. Enough said on the board leak, but what about the management environment that exists under Baskins? The investigators must have done prior work for her and she must have been sufficiently satisfied with their work to award such an important investigation to them. And if she was satisfied with the prior work, she can't plead ignorance of their methods in approving their results. BW should investigate the extent and history of that working relationship between Baskins as well as her methods used. If she were doing this to board members and journalists, what about other less powerful/influential people, e.g., HP employees?

Date reviewed: Sep 9, 2006 12:16 PM