More up-is-down, blue-is-red, big city lawyering.

Taking up on my griping of yesterday:

I am being told that a certain big, international company, with international in its name, runs TOTALLY SEPARATE operations in the 150 something countries in which it does business.

(I use the caps for emphasis. You can imagine the sense of a wide-eyed person telling you this as they are explaining it on paper.)

But everywhere I look, this big international company runs integrated operations everywhere it does business. I suppose I should say it like, INTEGRATED OPERATIONS!!!! <—–with lots of exclamation points.

But, it doesn't even have to be me saying it. I attended an in-house conference with one Ginni Rometty, associated with the big international company, and this is what she said, in Japan, July 30, 2008:

This Ginni Rometty is the same woman who was something along the lines of the 97th of 100 Top Most Influential American businesswomen in Forbes for 2008. Last year, the Wall Street Journal put her as the most likely to succeed Samuel J. Palmisano, the current CEO of the big international company. Makes a wealth of money every year now as it is.

So it makes you wonder, when Ginni Rometty is giving talks to allegedly “separate and independent” IBM (oops!) Japan, as if that unit is being managed as a fully integrated part of the American parent company, who is right?

Is Ginni Rometty right? After all, she’s the one standing up in front of an audience of subordinates, talking about how the company and its new acquisitions are going to be integrated. She’s the one whose name appears (spelled correctly or not) on certificates to do business in New York, for an international trading company based in Delaware.


Can it possibly be, that no one has told Ginni Rometty that her global company and the various units that she has charge of overseas have no “minimum contacts” to any state in the United States of America?

Or is it a lawyer slinging bullsh*t again?

It’s amazing that the same big, international company that was in U.S. District Court in White Plains, just a matter of days after one of their executives left for Hewlett-Packard, runs any number of dodges when called to answer something as basic as a breach of their own. (That White Plains case would be the IBM v. Visentin one, that I think IBM is now appealing to the Second Circuit. I blogged about it here.)

I guess when you’re 97th most powerful woman in America, these sort of inconsistencies resolve themselves somehow.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s