Denys writes,
>
> My reply is not an "Official Interex Response," but let me
> try to address your concerns from my experiences.
>
Noted.
> I attended the HP-ETS last fall and did sign an NDA so that I
> could see what those sessions were all about. We have never had
> anything like that at HP World, so I was curious. (There
> have been sessions in the past were HP wanted a signed NDA to
> attend, but
> these were usually outside of the conference area, usually in
> a hotel suite. Been there, done that. Got the NDA.)
>
Ah, yes, but these were not Interex/HPWorld events - there is a distinction
> I sat in on about a half dozen NDA sessions, covering various
> subjects. Invariably, these sessions were dealing with futures. In
> one session, HP (Compaq) mapped out the path for laptops for
> the next 12-24 months and you could ask questions of the engineers
> present. As many of you know, I have used Compaq laptops for
> a long time, so I really participated in that discussion. Another NDA
> session dealt with the future roadmap of the iPAQ. Again,
> this is an area in which I have been dealing for quite a
> while and again,
> I participated fully. I attended another such session
> dealing with the future roadmap for Storage. And another
> dealing with the
> future roadmap of Tape libraries.
>
> In each of these sessions, I was struck by the openness of
> the presenter and had to remind myself that I was under
> non-disclosure.
> Then it made sense.
>
And, you suppose there was no industrial espionage going on?
So what exactly earthshaking is going on here that its competitors do not
know about? I'm coming to the conclusion that this whole thing is a sly
marketing program to make ordinary customers think they are getting inside
information and therefore think they are special to HPQ in some way. Do
these sessions have much impact on design or future buying? Personally I
doubt it, but that is just my opinion.
> In my estimation, John is totally incorrect in saying that HP
> inherited a bad case of paranoia from Compaq. Au contraire, I would
> say that HP has always been extremely paranoid about
> everything, oftentimes to their detriment. Indeed, I found the Compaq
> engineers/representatives to be more open to comments and
> questions than the HP folks, as a whole, have ever been. I think some
> openness bodes well for the future.
>
Denys and I have been on opposite sides of the merger debate from the
beginning, so the fact he does not agree with me here is no surprise.
However, I would note that my understanding of last year's brouhaha about
press exclusion from roundtables is that it was caused by former Compaq
personal requesting the exclusion.
> HPQ opens the kimono with these NDA sessions and I can easily
> see why they would want to vet the people wanting to attend them.
>
If they really want to vet the people attending then the best way by far is
to make them separate events/webcasts that are by invitation only.
> BTW, I am talking here as someone who has spent most of his
> professional life under various NDAs with HP and other companies. I
> despise them as much as the next person, but I can see the
> necessity for them and whilst I understand and appreciate John's
> concerns, I would still want to have such sessions. I may
> even attend a few this year.
>
I've spent most of my career trying to avoid them. When I was in IT
management, my position was that if the information could only be disclosed
under an NDA, then I could not count on or make plans based on it.
Besides, I said I was feeling cantankerous ;-)
John Burke
****************************************************************
* John Burke MA, MS, CDP Email: [log in to unmask] *
* Burke Consulting Phone: (916) 987-0265 *
* 7224 Pine Grove Way Cell: (916) 337-0425 *
* Folsom, CA 95630 Web: www.burke-consulting.com *
****************************************************************
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
