We can't have it both ways. Structurally, it looks something like the heyday of leveraged buyouts from the 1980s. Back then the idea was that the parts of many inefficient companies could be sold piecemeal for more than the market capitalization of the company as a whole. It appeared to be good business to take companies private and sell off the under performing parts. But a lot has changed since the 1980s.
Industries are leaner and, most importantly, markets are quicker and more efficient.
Sure, there might be a little fat inside 3Com, but not that much. Yet this is exactly the explanation that Wall Street has accepted. The conceit of the efficient market has analysts working overtime trying to justify these numbers, citing them as a sign of troubles with 3Com's core networking business. The truth is somewhat different, however. The very success of Palm sent 3Com into a fit of restructuring, the extent of which would be difficult to otherwise justify.