For the PR-niks who subscribe to Ruminations to determine whether your antics are being reported on - hi.
Anyway, tucked in to the bottom of page 3 of Monday's physical version of the FT is a tiny headline - Waxman retreats on Diligence probe (no link love).
Do you think that someone pointed out that his support of IPOC probably flew in the face of a ton of established legal case history?
For those of you who lack my fascination with the Reiman vs Alfa battle (world population minus 1). Henry Waxman is "the Democratic chair of the US House of Representatives' top investigative committee." Diligence is a UK-based/led "investigative agency" whose Chairman (given that Chairing a company is quite difficult and not possible in English) is Michael Howard, one of the swathe of useless Conservative Party leaders of recent history, and Home Minister under John Major who would have given Genghis Khan a run for his money as a right wing nut. So reasonable potential for diplomatic consequences.
It would appear that Diligence was retained by/on behalf of etc, Alfa to prove what had been a matter of market knowledge for sometime. It would appear that Diligence's methods were only slightly more ethical than those employed by the board of HP (pretexting - which is not what happens before you send a sms.) Which caused someone to get someone on Waxman's staff to get all uppity and subpoena John "Genghis" Howard, or one of his flunkies anyway. You would have had to have been me to even know, or cared, that this happened in the first place. You would probably have to be me for a wry grin to cross your face after the subpoena was withdrawn.
I used to use a tennis analogy to follow the ups and downs of this saga. Well try this one for size - this match is now Tim Henman (Reiman) vs Roger Federer (Alfa) in the quarter final of Wimbledon - only one winner.