Re: Why so pro-Autonomy?
There are two ways of valuing something. One is to add up the sum of the bits,which is the valuation being disputed now, and the other is what a willing buyer is prepared to pay for it which seems to have been the basis on which the deal was done.
The second valuation is essentially what the buyer thinks it's worth to themselves. One view of that would be what it could be made to earn for them when fitted into their wider operation. AFAICR there were arguments bandied about which spoke of "synergy" and the like.
If that were the case then (a) the previous management were wrong in that judgement or (b) the subsequent management are wrong and that if they'd got on with the job they could have realised that value. The realisable value could, of course, have lain in the middle and both HP managements were in error - never something to be discounted in an HP that no longer contains an H or a P.
An alternative view of what it was worth to them was that it was looked on as a trophy in a willy waving contest between HP management and Oracle (whether Oracle regarded themselves as being in such a contest is neither here nor there, it was sufficient that HP did) and they made what they thought was needed to win the bidding.
The fact that the KPMG report was ignored suggests it was the second valuation that was adopted and, for whatever reason HP have now suffered a severe attack of buyer's remorse.
Finally, don't forget that a lot of sentiment here is based on the huge respect in which HP was once held and disgust at successive managements who have brought it so low.