Check Point is spinning like a top

So I'm going to rant again about an entry by Larry Greenemeier on the InformationWeek blog. Read the post here. This time it's about Check Point's rationalization about having to walk away from Sourcefire. The source is Check Point's CMO Ken Fitzpatrick, who must be very dizzy from all the spinning.

In my opinion Check Point is starting to sound very desperate. Clearly Plan B is either way out from a delivery standpoint or not there at all. Let's examine some of Fitzpatrick's statements:

"We are talking to Sourcefire about a number of security announcements," Ken Fitzpatrick, Check Point chief marketing officer, told me Thursday. "We jointly withdrew from CFIUS review so we could be more responsive to our customers. The CFIUS process was very complex in dealing with 12 agencies."

How were customers impacted by the regulation process? I guess they must have had engineers and customer support reps (the folks that actually interact with customers) working overtime on closing the deal. NOT! What he's saying is that it was too hard, so they gave up. At least be honest. They didn't think they could get the deal done in this political environment, so we walked away. There is no shame in that. But this drivel goes down as one of the all time lame excuse justifications that I've seen.

Fitzpatrick maintains that the resources devoted to responding to CFIUS's inquiries and the delay in its proposed Sourcefire acquisition would have hurt Check Point's efforts to expand its intrusion detection and prevention technologies.

Talk about a rationalization here. Give me a break. I guess they couldn't really look to buy anyone else while they were still courting Sourcefire. So if that's Plan B, then sure - they needed to terminate the deal. But if Plan B is a US-company, what makes them think the outcome will be any different?

If they are set on building their own stuff now, good luck with that. And I don't see how continuing down the regulatory approval process would have impacted their ability to continue doing internal development, and it's not like Check Point doesn't have profitability to burn to bring on another engineering team to build stuff as a contingency plan.

Looks like Check Point and Sourcefire will have to remain just friends for the time being, which is probably for the best in today's politically charged business environment.

Friends my ass. One of two things will happen and something needs to happen quickly. First, Check Point figures out a way to OEM the Sourcefire stuff. I don't see how that is in Sourcefire's best interest, but I'm sure it's on the table. If this is the direction they go, anything short of an OEM is an absolute failure on the part of Check Point. A "marketing" agreement does nothing for them.

Second, Check Point buys something else and it won't be a US company. So then they compete with Sourcefire. So to say that they'll remain friends is being a bit optimistic.

I do have to say that Check Point needs to get a much better story out there and really crystallize what their post-Sourcefire strategy is going to be. Right now, it's clear they are struggling. They way the deal falling apart was communicated was terrible and to not have a follow-on story was a big mistake.

They do have a lot of money and continue to be unbelievably profitable, but you can find yourself in the Hall of the Walking Dead very quickly in this business.