Every war has, besides its expectable casualties, additional damages that could not be avoided, predicted or foreseen.
In recent wars, the term “collateral damages” has been coined to justify or explain these unexpected damages.
We see a potential collateral damage to a company that has nothing to do, in principle, with the Oracle-SAP case, which is Hewlett-Packard. As much as its current CEO, Leo Apotheker, used to be CEO at SAP, and as much as he was a potential witness to the case, but managed not to show up, this could impact HP’s reputation somehow.
Now, at the same time, we are able to see a potential second collateral effect which might benefit both SAP and HP.
Should SAP shares lose enough value due to the trial’s verdict, it could be a potential good move for HP to do a little M&A with SAP… Still, a careful move to make, as it would be a very special situation for the former SAP CEO to acquire SAP precisely, when SAP just recently came out from the trial like it did.
Nothing against an ex-CEO to purchase as CEO somewhere else his former company. After all, HP PSG’s head, Todd Bradley, used to be CEO at Palm, and Palm is now part of HP, isn’t it? It’s more about the triangle made of SAP Ex-CEO now HP CEO – Trial – Shares losing value…
Interesting theory in our opinion, definitely worth blog posting.
Can I nitpick a little? SAP, Oracle and HP form an isolateral triangle, where SAP and Oracle are the long sides (the most important players of the drama), while HP is the third side - one that's relatively small (less important in the scheme of things), but serves to keep the long sides apart. It's because of HP that Oracle couldn't subpoena Apotheker, otherwise who knows what would have happened.
ReplyDeletemore than separating the two main actors, we would say HP connects them... good comment.
ReplyDelete