I get that Jobs’ health may affect the business, but doesn’t his right to privacy trump every else’s right to know? What about HIPPA? Seems that the SEC, in a fervor to be seen doing SOMETHING, is poking it’s nose where it doesn’t belong.
try the lavendar room, chief…
This will be interesting. Jobs, as the CEO and Chairman of a public company, whose leadership is clearly material to the performance of the equity, has an obligation to disclose to the equity holders the risk associated with his health. At the same time he has certain rights, as you note under various laws to right to privacy. This will be a ground breaking tug-of-war, that I actually think the SEC will win. Why? One, the SEC seldom, if ever, loses. Second, Apples could disclose the risk associated with Jobs healthy without actually disclosing the nature of the problem he has. For example, if a doctor says you have 12 months to live, he has no obligation to keep that private. Lastly, Jobs and Apple have already played into the SECs case, by answering questions and making commentary about his health in an effort to put investors at ease. Therefore to an extent, Jobs has already waived his right to privacy.
If the Bush administration should tell you anything, there is no such thing as a right to privacy.
I confess I didn’t read the link. But my opinion is that has SJ said nothing publicly about his health there would be no issue. He recently announced his rapid weight loss was due to a rare, but minor issue and wouldn’t effect his running Apple. A few days later he takes a leave due to health.
If he lied about his health earlier, I can see an investigation.
Styrrell