Victor -
I don't know where you're getting your information but it doesn't square with what I have heard, and your notion that any of those executives quit of their own free will is just naive.
It is routine at least in this country for departing executives to get a nice departing letter, unless they are on their way to jail... EP got a nice letter from Rosen too. No one is fooled. Likewise the "Resigned to accept another position" BS... It's considered better to have the fig leaf of a resignation than to actually be sacked, so when the boss says "resign or be fired", resignation becomes the obvious choice.
An interesting exception to this practice was the resignation of John Rose. As opposed to all of the other execs, Rose just got a brief note "John Rose has resigned effective...". No fig leaf. He must have really pissed them off.
Do you really think that leaving a position at the top of the dominant computer company to take up a job as CEO of an internet startup really qualifies as taking up a better position? BTW about half of those guys left their "fig leaf" positions only months after leaving CPQ, when they could find a REAL job.
It is your assumption that Rosen could not find a CEO outside of the company. I know at least one of the candidates personally, and although he is a guy with a big ego, he told me that he "did not make the cut". He would have taken the job in a heartbeat if it had been offered. He was one of the names in the press at the time.
In the end your argument for the handling of AV comes down to the notion that CPQ could have spun it out and made more money, and retained a higher equity stake in the resulting company. There is little likelihood that CPQ would have gotten anything like the $4B that their current stake yields, and they would in addition have been a majority owner of a company that competes with the companies they now need to attract.
Your argument leads me to the reluctant conclusion that you don't understand the internet business segment very well... |
