Caveat Emptor
The problem with HPs case is the principle of caveat emptor, the extensive due diligence performed by HP and that everyone at the time thought that Autonomy was hugely overpriced.
How on earth was did the due diligence process fail to unearth the supposed level of over valuation. Part of this must have been a look at actual sales, actual income and actual expenditure. No one outside of HP thought the value was anything like what was paid so how did the due diligence come to the conclusion that the company was worth what was paid?
Naturally Autonomy said they were worth more than they atually were, that is what a seller does but how can HP be successful sueing when the most major and obvious cause of their problems is massive incompetence by HP?
Biting the hand that feeds IT
