There are a number of aspects CSY enjoys as a division within HP is that it
can take advantage which it may lose as a separate company:

1) The majority of the hardware R&D expenditures used on the other
platforms for technology development.  How would it gain access to the
hardware technology and development resources without a need to increase cost.

2) Funds for capital development are provided from Corporate.  As a separate
company, these funds would have to from from retained earnings, capital
markets, venture capitalists or sale of stock.

3)  Currently CSY has no infustructure to provide customer support.  This
would have to be purchased from HP or developed.

Just a few of the many business issues to ponder when talking about making
CSY a separate company.... there's a lot to running a company that CSY
itself does not have and would need to be successful.  And it requires some
resources to provide for these things... ;-)



At 04:37 PM 8/3/00 -0500, Wayne Brown wrote:
>But as a separate company, CSY could start promoting the 3000 heavily without
>having to justify it to HP management.  They could even compete head-to-head
>with HP's other product lines, as well as with IBM.  I can just see the
>ads now:
>"Thinking of buying an AS/400 or an HP 9000?  Here's why you should
>consider the
>HP 3000 instead."  :-)
>
>(I'd hope that one of the new company's first moves would be to drop the silly
>"e" from the HP e3000's name.)
>
>Wayne
>
>
>
>
>Cortlandt Wilson <[log in to unmask]> on 08/03/2000 05:14:56 PM
>
>Please respond to Cortlandt Wilson <[log in to unmask]>
>
>To:   [log in to unmask]
>cc:    (bcc: Wayne Brown/Corporate/Altec)
>
>Subject:  Re: [HP3000-L] My thoughts on Ann Livermore's comments
>
>
>
> > Doesn't this go to what Wirt said?
> > Spin off CSY, and let them run with the e3000, unencumbered by an
>apparent
> > lack of commitment to the e3000 throughout the rest of HP?
>
>How difference do you predict a spin off would make?  With HP's
>business strategy of running each division as a semi-independant
>business it seems to me that the new spin-off would  approximate the
>status quo.
>
>That idea only makes sense to me if the "HP 3000" is renamed something
>like "e3000" - in other words remove "HP" from the name.
>
>Would you also sever the joint hardware development with the '9000
>line?
>Ditto the kernal software?
>
>With how I imagine such a split would work I don't see net advantage
>of the idea.