8 posts • joined 8 Sep 2010
I call BS
If Autonomy had a leg to stand on the company would not release a cutesy retort designed to make light of the situation.
No, if Oracle's claim was false then Autonomy would have responded as any company must in defense of any potentially criminally libelous claims made against it--with a lawsuit. Seriously, do you think for a minute that genuine indefensible libel against a company's CEO would be met with anything less? Of course not.
This isn't simply a case of he said she said...not if we read between the lines.
Let He Who Would Not Set The Record Straight Cast The First Stone
Every single one of the "Anonymous Coward" posts here are quite possibly from the same individual. One might ask why that individual "cares so much" too. Obviously the news struck at least one individual's chord.
The reality is that anyone who becomes aware of a lie that involves their name or the name of anyone close to them would very likely jump at any opportunity to set the record straight. Good or bad, it's the way most human beings behave. One can only imagine how the average person would behave if the lie was made in a public forum before an untold number of listeners.
Whatever Oracle's motivation, the company set the record straight. Clearly someone at Oracle felt Lynch would have no case for criminal libel--in short that their information and account of events is accurate and true.
The "real" question is not "why does Oracle care so much?" any more than it is "why would you care so much if the same was done to you?" The only question here is how will customers and prospects react to information that, at first glance, paints a picture of a chief executive that has absolutely no issue with lying to the masses in a public forum?
Singer wants Iron Mountain to evade taxes and pass the profits to his hedge fund
I think the most important point to make here, Chris, is that Paul Singer is attempting to persuade Iron Mountain--via its shareholders--to engage in a VERY questionable practice of tax evasion. It is, as far as I am aware, still a legal loophole in at least a third of the States, but one that has already landed companies such as Wal-Mart in Court. In fact Wal-Mart lost to the State of North Carolina, or more accurately the company involuntarily refunded $33 million in taxes it had avoided with the distorted use of an REIT.
For at least the past 10 years States have been actively working to close the loopholes that allow companies to form tax-exempt REITs and rent their own property to themselves to reduce tax obligations and recycle the funds back to the company and its other shareholders. REITs were originally designed with small investors in mind, not to be abused by large corporations to avoid taxation.
So Singer basically wants to push Brennan and Iron Mountain into a risky tax evasion scheme for the benefit of shareholders. Certainly not for the long-term benefit of Iron Mountain's customers. And very likely to land Iron Mountain in Court in more than one State. According to precedent, it's a battle Iron Mountain would eventually lose.
When I discussed similar topics more than a decade ago when I was neck deep in the development of information management systems and drinking the software koolaid I'd have told you that we should abstract and aggregate as much as possible and move the functionality from storage to an app server layer.
I have long since changed my tune as a result of spending time in the storage industry to understand how the two worlds intersect. An abstraction of the type you and others suggest unintuitively increases lock-in, complexity (and oftentimes decreases performance) in the pursuit of greater (perceived) flexibility and control.
It's what experts refer to as problem displacement. Problem displacement occurs when the boundaries of a problem are unclear, and action does not solve a problem, it merely shifts it to another medium/area and to other people. In this case shifting the problem out from the arrays/controllers into yet another collection of 3rd party applications.
I challenge anyone who makes the claim that the above is a better long-term strategy to put up or shut up. Show us in a real world environment, side-by-side with an existing system, that moving the functionality off the controllers and into an external app is superior over time. Until then, it's just a bunch of hot air.
Known as the Cloudfather? Seriously Chris? By whom? You? One person who might have said it jokingly to suck up during a conference call? I've not once heard Tucci referred to as the "Cloudfather" and I've been in this business with my ear to the ground for the last 8+ years.
Isilon has decent tech, but it obviously got DotCom greedy in its dealings with EMC. We always overvalue that which is already ours. No big deal, and depending on one's perspective about business, no big loss either. Isilon will continue to do quite well without EMC in a market in which EMC offers no competitive product.
Frankly I'd rather have seen EMC pursue DDN. Of the two companies (and we've dealt with them both) we prefer DDN's approach.
Chris, it happens to the best of us.
We sometimes choose only to see, believe, acknowledge and accept statements and sources that agree with our positions and it blinds us to information that may disprove our perceptions or call them into question.
Krischer, Hollis and Burke are no different.
Hollis clearly hopes to "expose" any affiliation Krischer might have to competitors perhaps with the hope that such information might cause readers to question Krischer's motives and distract them from the questions asked. I don't know about Krischer--I've never met him--but we've done a substantial amount of business with most major vendors including EMC and HDS. While disclosure is important, it becomes mostly irrelevant to a discussion in which the participants/subjects of the discussion have all been clients at one time or another. In the context of most of the analysts I know who do business with hundreds of competitors in dozens of categories, Hollis and his peer's new found love of "transparency" is a red herring. The day an individual like Hollis questions my integrity based on "who is paying my bills" I'll gladly trot out every EMC invoice from the past 8+ years along with those from his competitors. Then what? then perhaps he can drop the song and dance and answer the questions.
Kirscher is, in my opinion, justified in his disgust with regard to any personal attacks. Such behavior doesn't belong in these discussions.
Having said that, it seems like all three gentleman are engaged in a phallic waving contest that will never be resolved by way of half-baked blog comments. It seems the back and forth comments quickly became one big unintelligible mess that few people will have the time or patience to navigate. They each refuse to acknowledge any shred of truth in the others' comments.
I urge readers to save their time and apply it to something more valuable and insightful than adult adolescent bickering. I speak from experience. I've wasted far too much time participating in the same.
Typical CEO succession plan...up to the paid infirmary, then out on the street. Nothing mysterious here.
blah blah blah. Oracle. blah blah HP. Uh oh. Big scary monster. BOO. Oh it was just my shadow.
Really Chris, this is the best you could do? How about an article comparing HP's predicament with Hurd to EMC's with Donatelli? What goes around, comes around. Suddenly HP isn't ok with it.