How does this amount to fraud
'HP argued that it "never crossed the minds" of KPMG's due dil team "that Autonomy was making substantial sales of third party hardware on a standalone basis (i.e. pure hardware sales)'
HPs lack of knowledge of Autonomy's business cannot be blamed on anyone but themeselves and some of the things they claim not to have known defy believe.
"is clear in his evidence that he knew about Autonomy's appliance sales, but that at no point did anyone from Autonomy tell him that Autonomy was reselling third party software as part of its business".
How could Autonomy avoid reselling 3rd party software such as OS licenses? How could anyone imagine that they didn't?
The impression so far is of a reckless and cavalier HP buting Autonomy without no understanding, analysis or even interest in the details of the business. Yes they paid wildly over the odds but why should the seller be responsible for the buyers gross incompetence and recklessness?
As HP's case implodes what does this say about Hussain's conviction and the ability of the US legal system to fairly handle disputes between US companies and foreign companies?