The most credible explanation I've seen so far as to why HP fired Mark Hurd last month, even after it determined that he had not actually engaged in sexual harassment, was that the Mark Hurd help lead the investigation into the board over the infamous pretexting scandal, and that the whole story about the supposed harassment and fudged expense reports were just an excuse to get rid of a CEO the board didn't like -- even as he was performing tremendously well.

If that explanation is actually true, it also helps explain the news that HP is now going to sue Hurd for accepting his new job as President at Oracle. As HP's lawyers absolutely must know, California has a law that the courts have interpreted quite broadly, that says noncompete agreements are not enforceable, because you cannot deny a person the right to earn a living. HP is (weakly) trying to get around this by claiming the job shift would violate "confidentiality agreements" and trade secrets, but there's almost no chance a court buys that. The lawsuit seems like a non-starter. In fact, the only reason for filing the lawsuit really seems to be an absolute pest. It's an incredibly childish move by a company that should know better.

Want to know why it would cost $5.9 billion to fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool with printer ink? Perhaps look to our beloved US patent laws. Five years ago, we pointed out that HP was claiming that refill ink cartridges for its printers violated its patents, and that it was building up a team of scientists not to invent anything new -- but to analyze the chemical makeup of competitor's ink to see if they could hit them with a patent infringement lawsuit.

Every so often, we hear another bunch of claims from HP about ink refillers infringing on its patents, and just a few weeks ago, we heard that HP was asking the US ITC to block the import of refill ink cartridges from foreign competitors, claiming patent infringement.

Not to be left out, it looks like HP competitor Lexmark is getting into the game as well, and has also asked the ITC to bar the import of ink refills from 24 companies. Lexmark is also suing those same companies in court, showing once again how the ITC loophole gives companies two bites at the same apple.

Of course, it's fascinating to see Lexmark jump into the patent infringement game on ink refills. After all, it famously tried and failed to use the DMCA and copyright law to stop ink refills. It was right after that when HP started using patent claims, so it looks like it took a bit of time for Lexmark to get together a patent plan.

Of course, would it be nice if, rather than relying on government granted monopolies to block perfectly legitimate competition, these companies actually competed in the marketplace? Or is that too much to ask?

Well, well, well. Following the rather ridiculously vague Bilski ruling, that doesn't actually say what the right test should be for whether or not business methods or software should be patentable, many people have been wondering what it really means. While some of the justices have hinted at the idea that most software really isn't patentable, that's not at all clear from the ruling. Instead, the ruling suggests that the courts come up with a new test, and then the Supreme Court will tell them whether or not that new test is okay. Many software patent system supporters have interpreted this to mean that software patents are perfectly okay. But perhaps they shouldn't go that far just yet.

Groklaw is pointing out that, in the first post-Bilski ruling by the Board of Patents Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), a software patent application from HP has been rejected, with the BPAI saying that "abstract software code" is not patentable, as per Bilski. We've heard that plenty of people at the USPTO aren't fans of software patents themselves, so if they start ruling that most software is "abstract software code," things could get pretty interesting, pretty fast.

It's been rumored for several weeks now that Palm was up for sale, with a number of different companies supposedly taking a look at it, but news has come through now that HP has picked it up for $1.2 billion. Palm's business has been running downhill for a few years now; its worldwide market share has fallen from 3.5 percent in 2005 to 1.5 percent in 2009 -- despite the relatively warm welcome its Pre device received. The Pre was the first Palm phone to run its latest operating system, WebOS, which was supposed to help the company compete in a revitalized and highly competitive marketplace against the likes of Android devices and the iPhone. But that hasn't yet happened. The Pre (and the following device, the Pixi) hasn't grabbed significant market share, which compounds Palm's other problem: lack of a strong developer community for WebOS. That is actually sort of ironic, given that an older incarnation of Palm was probably better than anybody in the mobile space at cultivating a huge and loyal developer community, back in the days of Palm OS. So if scale and a lack of developers are the two biggest problems holding Palm back, does the HP deal actually do anything to help solve them? Maybe that's looking at the situation the wrong way: perhaps the point of this isn't for HP to fix Palm, but for Palm to bring something more to the table for HP. Like 1,500 patents.

Twitter is very useful for figuring out "what is happening right now." For example, Twitter has been used to figure out where an earthquake is happening. But instead of what's happening now, can it also be useful for telling what will happen in the future? Two researchers at HP Labs, Sitaram Asur and Bernardo A. Huberman, postulate that Twitter can actually be used to predict future box office results for movies. By building a computer model around the tweets for 24 movies, they claimed were able to predict the opening weekend box office results with 97.3% accuracy. An accuracy of around 97% seems unnaturally high, so I dug a little further into the actual report and found that both of these numbers were a result of combining each approach with the number of theaters associated with each release. Without taking into account the number of theaters in the release, tweets alone were able to predict at 93%. According to Asur, the correlation between theater counts alone and box office results is a paltry 39%. Considering that theater counts are probably a good indication of how well a studio thinks a film is going to perform, it seems that Hollywood should take notice of these forecasts.

The supposed gold-standard of box office predictions is Hollywood Stock Exchange, a prediction market. The researchers found that HSX had a 96.5% accuracy (when also combined with number of theaters). It's impressive that HSX gets a fair amount of accuracy despite it using "fake" currency. HSX is currently awaiting a ruling from the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission that will allow it to trade using real money. When that happens, the accuracy of its prediction market should increase. At that point it may be interesting to see how much more closely the two prediction systems compare, since the apparent edge that the Twitter algorithm has right now seems too small to be significant.

In any case, with Twitter, since it's also a communications medium, tweets about a movie not only indicate interest, but also can ultimately influence a movie's sales at the box office. However, this effect seems distinctly different than the traditional notion of "observer effect," since the act of measuring the interest in a movie can actually occur without directly participating in the Twitter conversation. That said, if it becomes common practice to predict box office success by analyzing Twitter, the incentive to exploit this by spamming Twitter with tweets about an upcoming movie increases greatly. After all, the many predictions that foretold that Avatar would break box office records certainly played a self-fulfilling part in its breaking of those box office records. Furthermore, Tweets were taken for the 7 days before the weekend -- which means there would not be enough time to make any adjustment to any marketing (in the event of a dire prediction), and certainly not to production budgets, which have already been spent.

So, while, in their report, Asur and Huberman conclude:

While in this study we focused on the problem of predicting box office revenues of movies for the sake of having a clear metric of comparison with other methods, this method can be extended to a large panoply of topics, ranging from the future rating of products to agenda setting and election outcomes. At a deeper level, this work shows how social media expresses a collective wisdom which, when properly tapped, can yield an extremely powerful and accurate indicator of future outcomes.

The simple fact is that there is still quite a chasm to cross before Twitter can be used practically for any type of prediction or forecasting activity.

Remember back when 3Com was a big innovative company coming up with interesting new products? What happened since then? Well, as we've seen over and over again, once a company runs into trouble continuing to innovate, its last ditch effort to stay in business is to start suing everyone for patent infringement. Step up to the plate, 3Com. The company set up a subsidiary specifically for suing other companies for patent infringement and just sued Acer, Apple, Asus, Dell, Fujitsu, Gateway, HP, Sony, and Toshiba. Oh, and take a guess where this "subsidiary" set up shop? East Texas... of course. All the better to file patent lawsuits apparently...

HP has stepped up its efforts to crack down on printer ink counterfeiters -- and with good reason. While the company plays up that it's helping consumers by getting shoddy products off the market, it's more about protecting its business. In the past, HP's put pressure on retailers not to carry cheaper alternatives to its expensive replacement ink cartridges, and it's tried to use patent suits to shut down cartridge refillers. But with sales down across the board, HP is moving to try and recoup some of the $1 billion analysts allege it loses to fake ink every year. BusinessWeek says "For years, HP could afford to ignore the problem," because of booming sales. But apparently, it couldn't afford to try and use patent lawsuits, pressure on retailers and other shady tactics to try and crowd lower-priced alternative products out of the market. It's perfectly fine for HP to go after counterfeiters selling inferior products under its name, trying to defraud consumers. But let's hope that's all it's now doing, and it's given up on trying to force legitimate alternative products out of the market.

Two years ago, we noted (with some surprise) that at least some top execs at HP seemed to actually be focused on trying to move the company into the future rather than clinging to the past, as is so common with many companies. Of course, it's one thing to say that, and another to actually get there. One of the elements discussed was recognizing that the traditional reasons why people print stuff might be going away, and the company needed to look elsewhere for revenue -- including coming up with new reasons why people might print stuff on paper. So one of the projects that HP has been working on (and is trying to promote more now) is its MagCloud offering that makes it cheap and easy for just about anyone to become a paper magazine publisher. Basically, you set up whatever you want via PDF, upload it to MagCloud, and it costs $0.20/page, and you have a nice glossy magazine. They'll even handle shipping copies off to your "subscribers" (and you can charge whatever you want for it).

While it might be worth wondering who wants to start a print magazine as so many things are going online, I could certainly see some uses for this on the margin -- including adding ways for primarily internet-only publications to add a cheap paper option as well. The fact that it takes out some of the bigger costs (especially upfront costs) and logistics, it will be most interesting to see if people start coming up with entirely new and creative uses for such micro-press magazines. I'm not convinced (at all) that this will actually succeed -- but I do find it interesting to see a big company like HP try to adapt to a rapidly changing market that undercuts the need for some of its core products.

Having bought my fair share of laptops over the years, I've noticed that the packaging has gotten smaller. I remember years ago buying a laptop and receiving a huge box with the actual laptop suspended in a styrofoam suspension system. More recently, I've seen laptops coming in much smaller boxes. However, Wal-Mart and HP have apparently decided to try ditching most of the packaging altogether, and letting you walk out with your new laptop in a messenger bag, rather than a box. Yes, there are still boxes from when the machines are shipped from HP to Wal-Mart, but the company can now fit 3 laptops to a box, significantly reducing packaging and making life easier on customers in the long run.

Last year, HP announced a special button that could be put on blogs to let users more easily print blog posts, without all the extraneous stuff on the website. At the time, we didn't see the value at all, but plenty of folks responded in the comments that it seemed like a good idea. It wasn't long before the folks at HP contacted us about trying the button out ourselves, so we put it on the page. It gets some use, though not an overwhelming amount. It appears that some people do actually print stuff out -- and they appreciate the simpler version.

Now, it appears that HP printer rival Lexmark is taking that idea much further by making it easier for users to eliminate a bunch of the junk on websites before printing them out -- so you only print out the stuff you really want. Unlike the HP initiative, this doesn't require the companies hosting the content to do anything, it takes care of it on the client side. Given the insane costs of ink, it's no surprise that printer companies have been a bit slow to adopt solutions that get people to use less ink -- but it's good to see them finally starting to recognize that it's probably for the best. Giving your customers reasons to like you, rather than hate you, tends to be a good long-term business strategy.