I don't follow Oracle news, but recently they sure pulled out a fairly atypical PR move, publicly revealing confidential information about another company (Autonomy) in the media.
The story is a confusing one and I'm still not sure why Oracle did this. Basically though it appears that Autonomy approached Oracle about being acquired. Oracle declined. Autonomy was then acquired by HP and denied that it ever approached Oracle. In response to what Oracle says are lies, Oracle posted powerpoint presentations that Autonomy, via proxy of Frank Quattrone, presented to them.
You can view the powerpoints here on Oracle's Web site. Oracle also came out with a press release - Another Whopper from Autonomy CEO Mike Lynch.
Usually this kind of thing is done behind the scenes via leaks to the media. Oracle could have easily just leaked the powerpoint presentation to a key reporter to change the narrative within the media.
Why they went with such a formal PR process I couldn't tell you.
Furthermore, this is a clear case of how disclaimers don't mean jack (yes, they are deterrents, but by no means are they absolutes). The presentations included disclaimers, including a line that said:
These materials have not been prepared with a view toward public disclosure under state or federal securities laws or otherwise, are intended for the benefit and use of the Company, and may not be reproduced, disseminated, quoted, summarized or referred to, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of Qatalyst.
Well, Oracle just gave Qatalyst/Frank Quattrone/Autonomy the bird when it comes to their legal disclaimer.
I suppose their legal counter argument would be that once Autonomy made public statements which were false and that such actions waived any disclosure disclaimers that essentially prohibited Oracle from defending itself as telling the truth.
Either way, this is one strange PR move by Oracle. While it may tarnish the reputation of Autonomy, it also tarnishes Oracle's reputation as well. It sends a message to all current and future businesses / partners dealing with Oracle that if you piss them off they will try to bury you in the public domain.
I mean, if everyone starts ignoring disclaimers and putting confidential information in the public realm we'll quickly descend in to a Jerry Springer-style business landscape.
If damage was being done to Oracle I can see why they may have wanted to hit Autonomy back, but from what I can tell, it's not like Oracle suffered some form of damage that demanded a response. It seems more like they were simply ticked off by Autonomy saying things they hold are untrue, even if such things don't materially impact Oracle to any great extent.
Oh well, there you have it, one of the strangest PR events in recent memory.
The story is a confusing one and I'm still not sure why Oracle did this. Basically though it appears that Autonomy approached Oracle about being acquired. Oracle declined. Autonomy was then acquired by HP and denied that it ever approached Oracle. In response to what Oracle says are lies, Oracle posted powerpoint presentations that Autonomy, via proxy of Frank Quattrone, presented to them.
You can view the powerpoints here on Oracle's Web site. Oracle also came out with a press release - Another Whopper from Autonomy CEO Mike Lynch.
Usually this kind of thing is done behind the scenes via leaks to the media. Oracle could have easily just leaked the powerpoint presentation to a key reporter to change the narrative within the media.
Why they went with such a formal PR process I couldn't tell you.
Furthermore, this is a clear case of how disclaimers don't mean jack (yes, they are deterrents, but by no means are they absolutes). The presentations included disclaimers, including a line that said:
These materials have not been prepared with a view toward public disclosure under state or federal securities laws or otherwise, are intended for the benefit and use of the Company, and may not be reproduced, disseminated, quoted, summarized or referred to, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of Qatalyst.
Well, Oracle just gave Qatalyst/Frank Quattrone/Autonomy the bird when it comes to their legal disclaimer.
I suppose their legal counter argument would be that once Autonomy made public statements which were false and that such actions waived any disclosure disclaimers that essentially prohibited Oracle from defending itself as telling the truth.
Either way, this is one strange PR move by Oracle. While it may tarnish the reputation of Autonomy, it also tarnishes Oracle's reputation as well. It sends a message to all current and future businesses / partners dealing with Oracle that if you piss them off they will try to bury you in the public domain.
I mean, if everyone starts ignoring disclaimers and putting confidential information in the public realm we'll quickly descend in to a Jerry Springer-style business landscape.
If damage was being done to Oracle I can see why they may have wanted to hit Autonomy back, but from what I can tell, it's not like Oracle suffered some form of damage that demanded a response. It seems more like they were simply ticked off by Autonomy saying things they hold are untrue, even if such things don't materially impact Oracle to any great extent.
Oh well, there you have it, one of the strangest PR events in recent memory.
Comments
Post a Comment