The justification for that request? A recent piece by New York Times business columnist Joe Nocera accusing TomorrowNow of “the most serious business crime you can commit” and suggesting that former SAP chief Léo Apotheker–who was recently named CEO of Hewlett-Packard– was well aware of it. “He may not have been directly involved in this brazen theft of intellectual property, but it defies belief to say he didn’t know about it,” Nocera wrote. “And he did nothing to stop it until it was far too late.”

A damning indictment, were it not for one problem: Nocera’s fiancée serves as director of communications for the law firm representing Oracle in its suit against SAP, a clear conflict of interest for the columnist and one that wasn’t disclosed when this article was first published. And for SAP, reason enough to demand an order preventing lawyers on both sides from discussing the case outside the courtroom.

“The episode involving the New York Times article–coupled with Oracle’s counsel’s refusal to eschew publicity efforts during trial despite recognizing that jurors may not heed a court instruction not to read press coverage–leads to this motion,” SAP’s attorneys wrote. “Referring to this copyright dispute as ‘the most serious business crime’ is inflammatory and, to the extent anyone credits the author, prejudicial. The same is true of almost any type of extrajudicial statements by counsel that a juror might read. The jurors should hear evidence and argument in court only; they should not be exposed to counsels’ extrajudicial repetition of, or spin on, the in-court evidence and argument.”

Arguments on the gag order are due tomorrow, with a ruling to follow sometime after that. Trial starts in a week, and with a witness list that includes Apotheker as well as his harshest critic, Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, it should be great fun to watch.

Another reputation smeared in the Hewlett-Packard/Oracle slag-fest. Turns out Joe Nocera (pictured here)–the New York Times (NYT) business columnist who penned that scathing piece on former SAP chief and incoming Hewlett-Packard (HP) CEO Léo Apotheker for his involvement in a lawsuit over intellectual property theft between SAP (SAP) and Oracle (ORCL)–has a conflict of interest.

Nocera’s fiancée, Dawn Schneider, is director of communications for Boies, Schiller & Flexner, the law firm that just so happens to represent Oracle in its very same suit against SAP.

Here’s the editor’s note the Times just appended to Nocera’s story.

In the Talking Business column in Business Day on Saturday, Joe Nocera wrote about a lawsuit by Oracle against a division of SAP, claiming theft of intellectual property. Mr. Nocera learned after the column was published  that Oracle was represented by the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, where his fiancée works as director of communications. To avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, Mr. Nocera would not have written about the case if he had known of the law firm’s involvement.

Odd to learn that Nocera, the Times’ star business columnist, was unaware that his own fiancée was a flack for the law firm repping Oracle in the suit (see screenshot above, with Boies named as counsel) that provided so much of the subject matter for his column.

But it seems he was not, up to today, when he made a CNBC appearance on the subject.

It’s not clear when Nocera found out about his conflict of interest. His column on the Oracle-HP spat, however, has been the talk of Silicon Valley over the last several days, including a smack back at it by incoming HP Chairman Ray Lane in a letter to the Times’ editor.

Here’s a video of Nocera talking about his HP column on CNBC:

[Nocera photo credit: Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times]

Who would have thought that the enterprise business would be this interesting?

But the continuing mishegas between Hewlett-Packard (HP), Oracle (ORCL) and the controversial move between the companies by exec Mark Hurd has now dragged in the New York Times (NYT).

Specifically, its star business columnist Joe Nocera, who penned a scathing piece a few days ago about the recent appointment of former SAP (SAP) top exec Léo Apotheker as CEO of HP to replace Hurd.

Wrote Nocera, as he wound up his fastball:

“Still, having written two unflattering columns recently about the H.P. board, I was inclined to take a pass on Mr. Apotheker’s hiring. But then I learned something about him that caused me to shake my head in disbelief.”

The thrust of Nocera’s column about a lawsuit over intellectual property theft between SAP and Oracle: Don’t throw stones at Hurd when you have such a dirty glass house.

But I am synopsizing, so here is the letter incoming HP chairman Ray Lane–who, by the way, once worked as president at Oracle until he and CEO Larry Ellison had a falling out.

You know, the non-shy and non-retiring Larry Ellison who has been sending constant verbal stink bombs over to the HP board of late–most recently at Apotheker–and who hired Hurd.

Folks, you cannot make this stuff up.

Here’s Lane’s letter (I removed all the email addresses) to the Times:

From: Ray Lane
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 8:59 AM
To: XXX
Cc: XXX
Subject: Letter to the Editor, NY Times

To the Editor:

Joe Nocera’s column, “A Double Standard at H.P.,” (October 9, 2010) grossly mischaracterizes the facts about why Mark Hurd had to leave HP, why the HP Board hired Léo Apotheker as CEO and the reason Oracle is trying to draw Mr. Apotheker into its lawsuit over TomorrowNow.

First, the lawsuit on TomorrowNow: Mr. Nocera concedes the suit between Oracle and SAP (and its now-shuttered subsidiary, TomorrowNow) is old news. Oracle has been litigating this case for years and has never offered any evidence that Mr. Apotheker was involved. It didn’t even deem him relevant enough to the case to include him on a list of witnesses for trial–until, that is, Mr. Apotheker was named CEO of HP and Oracle had other motives to try to tie him to the case.

The facts are: TomorrowNow was never under Mr. Apotheker’s supervision. The conduct in question at TomorrowNow occurred before Mr. Apotheker became CEO of SAP. And, it was Mr. Apotheker who, as CEO of SAP, shut down TomorrowNow. Mr. Nocera’s reporting on the case is sharply contradicted by that of an independent industry analyst–someone with real knowledge of the industry and the facts–who makes clear that Mr. Apotheker was not involved (http://ematters.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/setting-the-record-straight-oracle-sap-tomorrownow-and-the-nyt/).

As for the reasons why Mr. Hurd left HP: no Board can retain a CEO who violates the trust and integrity needed to lead a public company. Even Mr. Hurd publicly acknowledged that he failed to uphold those necessary standards. In the press release announcing his departure, he said that “… there were instances in which I did not live up to the standards and principles of trust, respect and integrity that I have espoused at HP…I believe it would be difficult for me to continue as an effective leader at HP and I believe this is the only decision the board and I could make at this time.” (Emphasis added.)

The bottom line is: Mr. Hurd violated the trust of the Board by repeatedly lying to them in the course of an investigation into his conduct. He violated numerous elements of HP’s Standards of Business Conduct and he demonstrated a serious lack of integrity and judgment. The Board was unanimous in its decision that he must go, including the seven directors Mr. Hurd recruited to the Board. These directors would not have acted unanimously to remove Mr. Hurd for “piddling expense account problems” as Mr. Nocera suggests. I was named to the Board after Mr. Hurd’s departure, but having carefully reviewed all the facts, it is clear to me the HP Board made the right decision. Had I been on the Board at that time, there’s no question I would have voted the same way. The Board simply had no alternative.

In hiring Léo Apotheker, HP’s Board turned to a principled leader of outstanding personal and professional integrity. He is an experienced, strategic thinker with the passion, global experience and operational discipline to realize our company’s enormous potential. Those are the qualities HP needs in a leader to move the company forward, and Mr. Apotheker is ideally suited to do that.

Sincerely,

Ray Lane
Incoming Non-Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors

“I’m not afraid
To take a stand”
—Eminem

Disclaimer: my business partner, Marc Andreessen, is on the board of directors of Hewlett-Packard (HPQ). I note that I have no inside information, and this blog post is based purely on published material. In 2007, I sold Opsware, the company that I founded and ran to Hewlett-Packard for $1.6B. I worked at Hewlett-Packard from 2007 to 2008 as an executive in the software business.

Recently, my old company Hewlett-Packard has been in the news–and not in a good way. I’ve been watching the coverage from the sidelines up to this point, but felt increasingly compelled to join the conversation and share my point of view. So here goes.

After firing their CEO, Mark Hurd, the HP board has been accused of everything from incompetence to being prudes. The criticism comes from credible, important journalists and bloggers such as Joe Nocera from the New York Times (NYT), prominent economics blogger Felix Salmon, and former GE (GE) CEO Jack Welch. In addition, HP competitor Larry Ellison lambasted the board and even went so far as to hire Mark Hurd to be President of Oracle (ORCL).

So why in the world did the HP board fire such a high performing CEO? Don’t they care about profits and shareholder value? Aren’t those the most important things? Who cares about his personal shenanigans? Did Mark and his marketing contractor even have sex?

While I am pretty sure that there is much more going on behind the scenes than has been broadly reported, as there often is, let’s look at what has been reported:

* Mark Hurd falsified expense reports.

* The false expense reports are related to a contractor named Jodie Fisher, a former softcore porn movie actress and Playboy model with no relevant marketing experience, who HP was paying up to $5,000 per marketing event.

* At the time of his departure from HP, Hurd issued a public statement saying that he’d violated HP’s Standards of Business Conduct:

“As the investigation progressed, I realized there were instances in which I did not live up to the standards and principles of trust, respect and integrity that I have espoused at HP and which have guided me throughout my career. After a number of discussions with members of the board, I will move aside and the board will search for new leadership. This is a painful decision for me to make after five years at HP, but I believe it would be difficult for me to continue as an effective leader at HP and I believe this is the only decision the board and I could make at this time. I want to stress that this in no way reflects on the operating performance or financial integrity of HP.”

Let’s start with the issue of falsifying expense reports. This factor has been largely dismissed in the press with characterizations like this from Joe Nocera of the New York Times:

“When pressed, H.P. said that Mr. Hurd had fudged some expense reports.”

Nocera goes on to argue that there must have been an alternate motivation to dismiss Hurd, because clearly no CEO would be fired simply for “fudging” an expense report.

When I first read of the expense report issue, my reaction was the opposite of Nocera’s. If the Chief Executive Officer of a public company falsifies any official financial statement, he must be fired. In my mind, this is non-negotiable. We are not talking about a low-level employee tossing an extra receipt into his expense report. We are talking about a public company CEO who is paid tens of millions of dollars a year and is responsible for the integrity of the company’s financial statements fraudulently reporting his own expenses. Why is this a problem?

Every person who invests in Hewlett-Packard does so on the basis of HP’s financial statements. Every pension fund, every retiree, every charitable organization, every employee who joins and is compensated via stock options. When they do so, they trust that the statements are true and that the numbers are accurate. The person they trust to ensure accuracy is the CEO.

If the Chief Executive is willing to compromise the integrity of the company’s financials for any reason, then it is impossible to trust any statement. Every day, there are many potential reasons to falsify financial statements. Here are four examples:

* If you miss the quarter, shareholders will lose money.

* If revenues aren’t high enough, you’ll be forced to lay-off hard working, valued employees.

* If you grow slower than a competitor, you may jeopardize your job.

* A shareholder that you’ve been having an illicit affair with doesn’t want the stock price to go down and threatens to tell your wife.

If a CEO is prone to compromise for any reason, he will have every reason. This time it was his expense report. Next time will it be a marginal accrued liability? A deal that came in at 12:01 am on the last day of the quarter? This is a slippery slope that a public board simply cannot tolerate.

What reason was so powerful that it caused Mark Hurd to break his ethical standard, falsify an official financial statement, mislead the board, and ultimately be fired? It seems that this was done to cover up a “close personal relationship” with a woman named Jodie Fisher, who later accused him of sexual harassment, then subsequently withdrew her claim after Hurd personally paid Fisher a large sum of money.

Who is Jodie Fisher? According to press reports, Fisher is a former Playboy model, reality show contestant, and softcore porn movie actress with no work history relevant to her job with HP. She was hired by Hewlett-Packard and paid up to $5,000 per meeting to meet with Fortune 50 CEOs.

The mainstream press has reported these facts as mundane, ordinary, and hardly worth concern. I disagree. HP employs over 300,000 people. Every single one of HP’s employees is keenly interested in the qualities, skill sets, and behaviors that HP values most. Financial compensation and access to the CEO are the most important ways that HP communicates what it values to its employees. Jodie Fisher had more access to the CEO and was paid more than 99.9% of HP’s workforce, despite having no traditional qualifications.

It’s important to note that this was not Hurd paying for his personal extracurricular activity out of his own pocket. This was the Hewlett-Packard Corporation paying a softcore porn movie star with no relevant work experience more than it pays Harvard graduates with 20 years of industry experience. This was the company spitting in the face of the people who worked hard and sacrificed every day to help the company win in the market. It was completely and categorically unacceptable.

Finally, Hurd admitted in a press release to violating the company’s standards of ethics and integrity. So what? Why do companies have standards and ethics anyway? Shouldn’t they just be concerned with profits? Do we want choir boys or shareholder value?

There are many who take the view that business is singular in purpose–to increase shareholder value. They further take the position that constraining that purpose in any way is inefficient and counterproductive. The mainstream press seems to have broadly adopted this position in its attacks on HP. The Wall Street Journal Op Ed page even complained that businesses were being held to an unfair standard when compared to politicians.

I do not subscribe to this view. Running our companies with no moral or ethical standards is bad for society, bad for the country, and ultimately leads to criminal behavior.

Companies should not merely be thought of as money generating machines. Business can represent human society at its best. A business is a group of people working together to deliver value to the world and improve people’s lives. When done ethically, business quite literally changes the world for the better. However, if the dark side of human motivation is not mitigated with standards and ethics, business can destroy.

We saw this unfold at Enron, a company that was, in its time, celebrated for its impressive profits. Underneath the profits was a culture designed from the ground up to completely ignore any ethical standard including a dazzling display of ethically questionable sexual activity among its executives. These activities, such as promoting secretaries to executive positions in exchange for sexual favors, parallel Hurd’s behavior with Jodie Fisher. In Enron’s case, the bad behavior bled over into first line employees who conspired to create blackouts in California in the name of profits and in the absence of ethics. Ultimately, Enron imploded in a swirl of criminal behavior that bankrupted the company, but not before destroying tens of thousands of peoples’ life savings and damaging millions of innocent victims. After the fact, the press bemoaned the culture that lead to the destruction. However, the same reporters instantly forgot the cause as they cavalierly dismissed Hurd’s ethical breach.

In closing, I point out the impressive courage of the HP board of directors to ignore popular opinion and do the right thing. It is not an easy thing to fire a popular, highly successful CEO. It’s even more difficult when you know that you will be roundly criticized for tolerating that same CEO’s failure to develop internal successors. Despite those factors, Hewlett-Packard’s board of directors stood tall and protected the company, its shareholders and all of us from a dark and destructive journey. As a member of the business community and as a citizen, I am extremely proud of and grateful for their actions.

Ben Horowitz is co-founder and general partner of Andreessen Horowitz. He co-founded Loudcloud, later renamed Opsware Inc., in 1999 and served as CEO of the company before it was acquired in 2007 by Hewlett-Packard. He was most recently vice president and general manager of Hewlett-Packard’s Business Technology Organization Unit.

I’ve trimmed this one down to about six minutes, but if you’ve got a spare 20 minutes or so–perhaps you’re underemployed right now–it’s well worth watching the whole thing. He also roughs up Fox News, explains the Dow, and has a nice interview with New York Times columnist Joe Nocera.

Update: A MediaMemo reader wants to know who Howard Beale is. That question would normally make me feel old, but in this case I’m pretty sure the reader is older than I am. In any case, here’s Howard, also known as Peter Finch, also known as the “I’m mad as hell” guy. And if you really haven’t seen “Network,” go add it to your Netflix (NFLX) queue now.

As usual before yet another big Apple event, the psychic friends network is in overdrive in anticipation of the iconic computer company’s “Let’s Rock” media gathering in San Francisco tomorrow.

At this point, I think Apple could announce a change in the color of its bathrooms at its Cupertino HQ and it would be mayhem among the Mac faithful.

Nonetheless, even though what will be announced is likely to be a series of incremental improvements for Apple’s line of music-playing products–iTunes, iTouch and, of course, the iPod–and even the possibility of a revamped design, it’s astonishing how striking the hype is around the event.

Of course, that kind of passion from core users is a blessing for any tech company, and it is hard to quibble with Apple’s stellar ability to market every jog and tittle of its product development as if it was the second coming.

But the most intense focus will more likely be on Apple’s leader, CEO Steve Jobs, whose gaunt appearance at the Worldwide Developers Conference in June set off a flurry of discussion about the exact state of his health.

That talk has since been less frantic, despite the fact that there actually has been no clear announcement from Apple (AAPL) on the delicate subject (and Jobs’s colorful off-the-record chat with the New York Times’s Joe Nocera does not count, folks).

In any case, because AllThingsD.com cannot resist either, Digital Daily’s John Paczkowski will be there liveblogging “Let’s Rock” from the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts, with all the news that’s fit to post.

And, of course, everything else too.

There will be a lot of different reactions to the first of Microsoft’s newest series of commercials, featuring Founder Bill Gates playing straight man to comic Jerry Seinfeld.

Set up as a discount shoe-buying skit, Seinfeld helps Gates purchase a pair called “The Conquistador,” and for some Seinfeldesque reason, it’s churros all around.

Actually, it feels a lot like the frequent and excellent Microsoft internal spoof videos Gates does with various celebs.

I have always liked them a lot and I like this one too, as it is quirkily charming (or is it charmingly quirky?).

But I am not sure the Gates-Seinfeld kibitzing will really get a lot of people talking about Microsoft (MSFT) products, as is the marketing goal.

And they surely are no where near as spot-on as Apple’s famed PC-Mac guys commercials, which are memorable and witty and deliver the message that Apple (AAPL) products are better.

What might be more effective, of course, at least in the Internet arena, is for Microsoft to get off the stick and lay out its next Web strategy clearly, especially in the wake of its failed attempt to acquire Yahoo (YHOO), and name the digital chief it said it planned to.

Several sources with knowledge of the situation expect an internal choice to helm the part of the business that was run by former Microsoft exec Kevin Johnson, who left after the software giant’s bid for Yahoo failed.

Although an external star coming in would be CEO Steve Ballmer’s top choice, I would guess, top internal contenders are Brian McAndrews, who came to the company via its $6 billion aQuantive acquisition, and longtime exec Yusuf Mehdi, who was Johnson’s strategy guy.

(BoomTown votes for a combination of both to make it extra complex!)

In any case, if it is serious about taking on rival Google (GOOG) in the online ad space and becoming at least the No. 2 player in the market, Microsoft has to move sooner than later and definitely much faster and it has a lot of options.

With Yahoo’s stock circling the drain, closing yesterday at $17.75, will Microsoft think about another bid for even a part of the Internet company?

Or will it try, as it claims, to get truly serious about building its business organically with programs like Live Search cashback, a deeper focus on vertical search improvements in places like video, images and mapping, and more content on its MSN sites?

Or should it be aggressively looking around for other properties to purchase to bolster its Web assets, such as the company that owns the Ciao price comparison and online shopping sites in Europe, for which it just forked over $500 million?

Of course, Microsoft will likely keep trying all of these, although I hope not in the muddling way it has behaved for far too long.

Johnson was entirely right in his internally controversial concept that being one of the top players on the Web is key to Microsoft’s future, even more than its lucrative Windows software hegemony.

(If you want to read an interesting take as to why, don’t miss New York Times columnist Joe Nocera’s “Does Windows Still Matter?” post yesterday).

And with Google’s new foray into the browser business this week, Microsoft surely has to be certain that it does not lose in the one place it does dominate.

In other words, Microsoft has a lot of work ahead of it, well beyond amusing us with Gates doing a thankfully hands-free adjustment of his boxer shorts.

In any case, you should see that, so here’s the first Gates-Seinfeld commercial:

At least that is what investors learned by reading the New York Times, in an odd culmination of events that started last week, after Apple (AAPL) reported its second-quarter earnings and an analyst gently asked about Jobs’s health on the conference call.

Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer’s reply that Jobs “has no plans to leave Apple” and that his “health is a private matter” did nothing to assuage investors’ fears that the legendary CEO could be ill again, based on his gaunt appearance at Apple’s Worldwide Developers Conference in June and renewed media speculation last week.

Read the rest of this post

So, I have been standing by, trying to make sense of the debate that has swirled around Apple CEO, Co-Founder and font-of-all, Steve Jobs, with regard to his health or, more specifically, the lack thereof.

And after listening to all of the debate about it–mostly indignant declarations by the media, making their case mostly by wheedling milder indignant declarations from stock analysts and corporate tsk-tsk outfits–I have concluded that what is ailing Jobs is exactly no one’s business.

Even if his every breath is critical to the ongoing operations of Apple, the reason most use as their main argument for Jobs to tell all, it goes double.

Why?

Well, any Apple (AAPL) investor has to know by now that Jobs suffered from a rather serious bout with a curable version of pancreatic cancer some years ago and that recovery includes inevitable complications.

That was on display when he took to the stage of Apple’s most recent Worldwide Developers Conference in mid-June and looked really gaunt and unhealthy. It was obviously hard to look away.

People immediately reacted like it was the end of the world–which is no surprise given Apple’s rabid following–and began to suddenly acquire instant medical degrees and diagnose Jobs on the spot.

In its typically secretive style, Apple did not help matters by throwing out a thin gruel of information and noting it was only a common bug.

Of course, that felt like a bigger whopper than usual–even if he did, in fact, also have a cold, it kind of begged the question of what accounted for the rest of his haggard appearance.

In any case, the chatter went on and on, right up until the most recent quarterly earnings call when Apple’s CFO said, when asked that Jobs’s health, that it was a “private matter.”

Immediately, that sent the debate into a frenzy, as armchair word detectives went into overdrive about exactly what that meant. (Personally, I think it meant that Apple was saying Jobs’s health was a private matter.)

This weekend, the noise level reached a quantum level after Jobs made a can’t-make-this-up statement to New York Times columnist Joe Nocera, who was inquiring as to Jobs’s well-being:

“This is Steve Jobs. You think I’m an arrogant [expletive] who thinks he’s above the law, and I think you’re a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong.”

Now that just cracked me up, given all that had gone on before, although some were once again indignant over the gall of a major company CEO making such a statement.

Obviously, they have never met or heard Jobs, who is well known for doing such things pretty much all the time.

And that’s the problem here and my main argument for leaving him be:

1) As I said, Apple investors who have not figured Jobs’s precarious health–after a round with any kind of cancer–into their investment strategies about Apple going forward need some serious reality medication themselves.

Guess what? Jobs has been really sick and it means he is going to have a harder time with any kind of infection or complication for the rest of his life, and he will likely be more delicate than someone who has not had cancer.

By the way, the take-away from the Nocera article and an earlier one last week in the New York Times was that Jobs had been quite ill, but not life-threateningly ill. Which was Jobs’s way of getting out the news.

2) Jobs is one of the most important CEOs, in relation to his company, around. (Warren Buffett, who did choose to reveal all when he was sick, is the other.) And that’s another thing investors should be figuring into their calculations on the worth of the stock.

As Jobs himself said in a famous commencement speech to Stanford University: “No one wants to die. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it.”

You don’t have to get as dramatic as all that to know that when you are talking about such a charismatic and critical CEO as Jobs, any lack of involvement by him–like say going on a year-long yoga retreat–is going to be a problem that investors are buying when they buy the stock.

Of course, there are other Apple employees making things work at the company, although it sometimes feels as if Jobs is crafting every iPhone that goes out.

But it’s obviously the Steve Jobs Show, and investors risk that when they buy such a ticket–kind of like anyone who bought a ticket to Celine Dion’s recent show in Las Vegas and hoped she would not get, like, a common cold!

3) And, of course, we get to the secretive Apple culture story line in every single story, which is trotted out like it is a surprise and we should all be so angry about it and demand change.

Again, have we not been paying attention all these many years? When has Apple not been secretive, except when it suits itself?

Here are a few more shockers for those still stewing about Apple’s secretiveness: Sen. Barack Obama is African-American and Sen. John McCain is old and some people in the country are racist and ageist and may hold those things against them in the upcoming Presidential election!

All kidding aside, it’s the same media that wait in eager anticipation when Jobs doles out the often-disingenuous tidbits about various Apple products coming and then hype them to the high heavens for him when he deigns to unveil them.

In other words, the Steve Jobs you are getting right now is the Steve Jobs you have always gotten–on his terms, what he wants to say and when and how.

So don’t be surprised when he does just that.

Meanwhile, Jobs has come to our D: All Things Digital conference many times and chatted up a storm. Here he is in a highlights reel of the historic joint interview with Microsoft CEO and Founder Bill Gates in 2007.

In it, Jobs is quite voluble about their longtime rivalry and also reveals their secret relationship that dares not speak its name (he is kidding):

And then the New York Times’s Joe Nocera called for it in an eviscerating column this past weekend that articulated what an increasing number of people in Silicon Valley and Wall Street and, more importantly, within Yahoo have been thinking of late.

And that it is: Whether Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang (pictured here at D6) should step down in favor of another top executive to lead the troubled Internet company into the next era.

It’s the obvious question, of course, to ask whether the co-founder of Yahoo has what it takes to manage the company through what will doubtlessly be a very difficult year.

(Speaking of that, see this disturbing hiring freeze post by Peter Kafka of Silicon Alley Insider, which might spell trouble ahead at Yahoo.)

BoomTown asked Yang specifically why he was the right leader for Yahoo going forward at our sixth D: All Things Digital conference recently and–guess what?–he did not really have an answer to the question.

Let me for him, then: The main reason he is the right leader is due to his history, his obvious love for Yahoo and its employees and that his heart, as Yang said in his one and only passionate moment onstage, does bleed Yahoo purple.

Unfortunately, as important and touching as those things are, it’s probably not enough for the rough road ahead for Yahoo.

As Yahoo continues to be in limbo, pressure is sure to mount heavily on Yang, and it is not a stretch to imagine he will not remain in the top job at the troubled company for the long term.

So who would be good to replace him?

The list is a long one and could include execs like Tim Armstrong of Google, Kevin Johnson of Microsoft and any number of media and advertising execs.

But I have six candidates I like, so here’s my short list, in no particular order (and remember, the last time I made one for the job of the No. 2 leader for Facebook, its current COO Sheryl Sandberg was high on my list).

Sue Decker

Yahoo President Sue Decker (pictured here) is the obvious choice for Yang to hand over the reins to.

But should he?

Here are the positives: Decker is smart, articulate, financially savvy and a well-known quantity within Yahoo.

And, like Yang, she has worked her heart out there for many years.

But there are some significant negatives, starting with the tarnish of the whole Microsoft takeover saga, which most think both she and Yang have handled badly.

After so much confusion and missed opportunities, it is not clear if the troops at Yahoo or, perhaps more importantly, Wall Street and the company’s shareholders will give Decker the kind of running room she needs.

In addition, again and again, many within Yahoo talk about Decker’s lack of product feel and overall vision that will be required to truly give Yahoo the kick in the pants it so sorely needs.

Plus, Decker has been around Yahoo a long time and is clearly part of the leadership group that has allowed the company to languish for so long.

Nonetheless, Decker clearly remains the front-runner and might blossom if she had full control over Yahoo, as Bob Iger of Disney (DIS) did there, for example.

Meg Whitman

While many do not know it, Meg Whitman (pictured here) was almost the CEO of Yahoo once, but lost the chance due to a botched merger attempt between Yahoo and eBay (EBAY) back in Web 1.0.

Think of the might-have-beens of that union.

There is no doubt Whitman is an Internet exec star, despite the fact that she herself admits having done as much as she could at eBay after a decade when she recently stepped down as CEO there.

But that kind of candor is exactly what is most impressive about Whitman, who is straight-talking, and very, very tough, despite a sunny-seeming exterior.

She has certainly impressed Yahoos already, having appeared in the not-too-distant past at a sales conference, where she blew away the crowd with her grasp of Yahoo’s business.

Here’s the problem: Most expect the Republican Whitman to make her next move in the California political arena. Can you say Governor Whitman? Senator Whitman?

And also, she’s about as rich as you can be and any monetary attraction to reviving Yahoo would probably be negligible.

Peter Chernin

Let’s be clear–we’re not putting Peter Chernin (pictured here and BoomTown’s kind-of boss) in this list to kiss up to him.

While News Corp. (NWS), where Chernin is No. 2, is the owner of this site, I and many others consider him (along with Disney’s Iger) to be one of the sharpest and most versatile “old” media execs to get the Web.

At the very least, he does not seem scared senseless by it. (Which is a very big deal.)

And while he probably presides over one of the choicest media conglomerates out there, CEO Rupert Murdoch shows no signs of retiring, and his son, James Murdoch, is clearly training in the wings.

A move to Yahoo would be a bold one for someone like Chernin, who clearly has the tough management chops to run the place and give it direction to become a true partner to Hollywood in the way the Spock clones of Google never ever will be able to.

Actually, given he has a foot in both old and new media (Hulu.com, MySpace), he is BoomTown’s No. 1 pick.

Marc Andreessen

I had included Marc Andreessen (pictured here) in my list as a possible No. 2 exec at Facebook as a bit of a lark, just to remind folks that vision matters.

For his excellent blog alone, Andreeseen deserves a lot of attention for its bracing insight about the Internet business and its future.

And Andreessen has plenty of real-life chops too, from his founding Netscape right up until today, creating a series of new Web companies (he is currently chairman of a social-networking company called Ning) and investing in a lot of others that have given him a lot of gravitas and financial windfalls over the years.

Let me clearly state, I was not sure Andreessen could ever grow out of his enfant-terrible mode when I covered him several years ago, but that has clearly happened.

He knows how to build exciting companies, he is well-liked in Silicon Valley, he knows about scale, he knows about social networking and he is a respected technologist.

Most of all, Andreessen would be a leader who would add a lot of excitement to Yahoo. And, believe me, Yahoo needs a lot of that.

Dan Rosensweig

I know, I know. But why not?

Some might question my choice of Dan Rosensweig (pictured here), mostly because he departed from Yahoo in a previous crisis, but was still part of the management group that got Yahoo into this mess in the first place.

But, think hard. Rosensweig was not in charge then–in fact, leadership failures fell to former CEO Terry Semel and also Yang.

In addition, many at Yahoo–though not all–thought Rosensweig did a decent job of running the place.

He also wanted Yahoo to take a lot more chances than it did and is well liked in Silicon Valley and Wall Street.

In leaving and then returning, Rosensweig might represent a choice that allows Yahoo employees to feel confident that some of its past soul remains.

Mark Cuban

I am not kidding. Not even one little bit.

I know Mark Cuban (pictured here hoofing with gusto) is disliked by Yang and others at Yahoo for selling Broadcast.com to Yahoo back in the last bubble and then clearing out and making bank.

And I know they were furious that Cuban popped up on Icahn’s alternative board to replace Yahoo’s current board.

So what! Big whoop! Blah, blah, blah.

Because Yahoo needs a major restart and Cuban would easily be able to push that button.

Cuban is unorthodox, has clear business acumen and success, knows how to invest and he is loaded for bear with vision.

He is also dabbling in some very interesting arena of HDTV, as well as being involved in some other interesting investments.

Cuban is willing to be controversial and often takes aim at Google, with some good results, in his blog.

His current post: “Hulu Is Kicking YouTube’s Ass.” (Ahahahahahaha. Dang, I wish I had written it.)

It’s that kind of moxie that means he is probably the only one with the guts to really get down in the weeds of Yahoo and start hacking away at the tangle that needs hacking.

Also, Cuban can sure dance.

And, most of all, the next CEO of Yahoo is going to need to know how to do some very complex two-stepping–with Wall Street, with shareholders and with employees.

And he or she is going to have to look good doing it.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Here are two pieces this week, from the multitude of them about the continuing turmoil at Yahoo (YHOO), that really stand out for me.

Both encapsulate the dicey situation that the troubled Internet company finds itself in now–which is to say very dicey.

One from The Wall Street Journal’s Dennis K. Berman–titled “Who Played It Worse: Microsoft or Yahoo?”–comes to the only conclusion: Both.

Wrote Berman: “Never have so few failed so many for so much at stake.”

Money quote on Yahoo, referring to its ad-outsourcing deal with Google (GOOG):

Consider the state of Yahoo now: Thrust into the arms of Google, it now is forced to admit it can’t develop the technology to compete head-on with the Googleplex. It is as if IBM were to admit it could no longer build a big server, or Toyota were to give up on the Corolla and start selling Honda Civics.”

But a more devastating indictment of Yahoo and its CEO and Co-Founder Jerry Yang comes from New York Times columnist Joe Nocera, called “Oh, Jerry, It’s No Longer Your Baby.”

While Nocera, whom I know and admire, is not saying anything new about Yang’s glacial management of the company and Yahoo’s boneheaded handling of the Microsoft (MSFT) situation, his bracing prose in the form of a poison pen letter sums it all up perfectly.

Wrote Nocera, as he shoved the shiv in: “I haven’t seen this much contempt for shareholders since Robert Nardelli [pictured here] ran Home Depot.”

After recounting the sins against Yahoo shareholders, here’s the money quote:

Jerry, you’re a billionaire because people all over the world bought your stock, and trusted you to do right by them. That’s the compact you make when you take a company public: you get to be really rich, but in return, you have an obligation to do everything you can to ensure that shareholders get a healthy return on their investment. It doesn’t matter that you would like Yahoo to remain independent, or that you can’t stand Microsoft. Your feelings aren’t supposed to get in the way of your fiduciary duty.

A takeover by Microsoft was your last, best hope of rewarding your long-suffering shareholders. Now that opportunity is gone. It says here Mr. Icahn is not going to go as gently into the night as Mr. Ballmer did–and if I were a betting man, I would be taking odds that your days as Yahoo’s CEO are numbered.

It’ll be better for everyone to have someone in that role who understands who he’s supposed to be working for. Wouldn’t you agree?”

I would–but much more on that diciest of subjects for Yahoo next.