Steve Jobs nearly died and lied about it

[Quillz]

While I agree that Steve Jobs is (obviously) entitled to privacy, just like we all are, there's also a big difference between having a "nutritional problem" and needed a full-blown liver transplant.

The issue at hand isn't about whether or not Jobs should have disclosed his full medical dilemmas. He doesn't have to nor should he. But he should have been direct, explaining that he was having a serious medial issue, as opposed to something "nutritional."

[evo0o]

Firstly I believe that he is entitled to his privacy.

The "nutritional problem" was something about not being able to absorb proteins or something right? I believe that his body also failed to produce bile, and fats couldn't be broken down -- thus the weight loss.

[t_r_nelson]

But the privacy laws in the United States say that medical records are confidential unless the condition poses a risk to others (HIV, TB, influenza, etc.). The SEC can investigate anything they want, but there is no way they will ever be able to force medical records become public. The ACLU would have a heyday with this. As well as the medical profession, the health and human services departments.

And, Hurmoth, releasing details of certain afflictions/diseases would open them up for prejudicial behavior. HIV is better understood, but the homosexual aspect of the infection still lingers. What about something of a different nature, such as mental disorders?

You paint a broad brush with saying they should release this information, but when does it end? Do we find out that Bill Gates has E.D.? Do we hear about the guy at NBC that has thoughts of suicide? At what level does it stop? It's a dangerous slope to start saying release it all?

[Admodieus]

I wonder how many people here stating that he should be left alone are merely Apple product owners vs shareholders. I am an Apple shareholder, among many other companies, and I for one deserve to know how the company I partially own is being operated, and how the CEO is doing as he makes decisions that directly affect my profit in the company. Unlike a lot of CEOs, Steve Jobs is part of the company and the company is part of him. He makes most of the decisions that make the company what it is, therefore when he is missing from making those decisions the company starts to go down hill.

That hasn't been more truer since he returned than the last six months, and even the last year or two since his health started to decline. The company has produced increasingly minor updates, including the recent iPhone update and this can, without a doubt, be attributed to Jobs' absence.

When this happens shareholders start looking for other companies to invest their money, which makes my shares less valuable and forces me to consider moving my money to another company as well. I didn't, but that isn't the case with every other shareholder.

Stop looking at this situation from a personal point of view because it isn't. If Jobs wanted privacy he shouldn't be CEO of a company, he should be a private citizen far from media attention. But he isn't, he is CEO of a public company and therefore is at the mercy of the shareholders and we deserve to be notified of health issues, despite what everyone else may think.

When investing in a company, who the CEO is, the their health, the health of the company, the direction the company is headed in, etc. all play a factor when determining which company to invest in.

This simply isn't a personal privacy issue, it is a business issue.

Great post. Apple knows that it's stock is closely tied to Jobs' marketing skills and continued health. I'm all for personal privacy, but when you are the CEO of a major company that loves to go on stage two or three times a year and do keynotes and unveilings, you are in the public square. Don't want to tell them you're knocking on death's door? Fine. But don't come out and tell the shareholders that you have a nutritional problem when your liver is shot.

[neufuse Veteran]

Since when does the SEC override the HIPAA laws? No one can disclose with out the consent of the patient, nor can you force someone to disclose their condition under the laws unless forced to by a court order... Jobs has NO responsibility to disclose his health conditions or treatments... nor does he have to tell anyone, Jobs is not the company, he just runs the company... especially since he did transfer the control of the company, he did not hinder the company in any way because of the control transfer... if the company requires Jobs to be a company, the company has bigger problems...

[Hurmoth]

But the privacy laws in the United States say that medical records are confidential unless the condition poses a risk to others (HIV, TB, influenza, etc.). The SEC can investigate anything they want, but there is no way they will ever be able to force medical records become public. The ACLU would have a heyday with this. As well as the medical profession, the health and human services departments.

And, Hurmoth, releasing details of certain afflictions/diseases would open them up for prejudicial behavior. HIV is better understood, but the homosexual aspect of the infection still lingers. What about something of a different nature, such as mental disorders?

You paint a broad brush with saying they should release this information, but when does it end? Do we find out that Bill Gates has E.D.? Do we hear about the guy at NBC that has thoughts of suicide? At what level does it stop? It's a dangerous slope to start saying release it all?

Your argument, with all due respect, is extremely poorly thought out. First off, this has nothing to do with privacy laws. Look up SEC?s full disclosure regulations and you will see that Apple broke the law, plain and simple, by not disclosing Jobs' health issues. This isn't about privacy, this is about the head of a company. You can argue whatever you want, the law states he must disclose the information.

The SEC?s Regulation FD requires ?full and fair disclosure by public companies."

Secondly, HIV isn't caused by just homesexual behavior. People have gotten it from blood transfusions before, from doing drugs. Regardless of how a person got it, if they are making executive level decisions for a publicly traded company, they have a legal responibility to report this information to their shareholders if it affects their job performance.

I keep repeating this and it seems you keep ignoring me, but if it affects their job performance they have a legal obligation to report this to their shareholders. How would ED affect Gates' ability to function in the workplace? He isn't a porn star.

If there's an executive at NBC with suicidal thoughts and the network knows, they have an obligation to (1) get this person help and (2) release this information to their shareholders. You may not like it, but that is probably why you're not head of a public company. No disrespect meant, but when you are an executive of a publicly traded company you are no longer living a private life.

[Steeley]

Just look at what that journalist is really saying; they're more worried about the value of their shares than they are about the well-being of the man. And to joke around about death like that isn't funny.

The day the glorious west put capitalism ahead of its citizens' right to privacy and well-being is the day the west is ****ed.

[Hurmoth]

Since when does the SEC override the HIPAA laws? No one can disclose with out the consent of the patient, nor can you force someone to disclose their condition under the laws unless forced to by a court order... Jobs has NO responsibility to disclose his health conditions or treatments... nor does he have to tell anyone, Jobs is not the company, he just runs the company... especially since he did transfer the control of the company, he did not hinder the company in any way because of the control transfer... if the company requires Jobs to be a company, the company has bigger problems...

I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. SEC?s Regulation FD were created to help thwart insider trading. Obviously the other executives would know about the issues Jobs faced, or at least that he had health issues. What if we didn't even know that Jobs was on leave, one of the other executives purchased a large sum of shares and then if Jobs did pass away, he sells before it hits the public and then boom he's made a ton a money while the other shareholders are left with nothing.

You can't think about this as Jobs being an individual. HE ISN'T, he a public figure and the shareholders deserve to know what is going on with THEIR company. The shareholders own the company and therefore are entitled to know.

[OOOOOOOO]

I for one just feel bad for the guy having to have this horrible op and live his life this way. Poor dude. Money doesn't fix everything, but I hope the money he has at least allows him to live a semi-normal life.

I own Apple products ... but I don't care about my iPod more than I care that the man is healthy. Jeez, he's a human being ...! If Apple collapsed without Steve in charge, no offence, but I'd buy a Zune or something next time and just wonder why Apple only ever hired one talented guy. But I'm pretty sure that Apple, as it has done lately, would run ok without him if it had to.

[The Rev]

Did he lie or just exercise his personal privacy? The media is speculating that "no one knew" but I'd be willing to bet the "right people" knew and also the Apple legal dept and key board members. Additionally, I would not under estimate Jobs importance to Apple, but there are a lot of smart folks in the company and I'm sure as soon as Steve was sick there were contingency scenarios being built.

He didn't lie, but he went out of his way to not disclose the truth... There's a very thin line between these two. Honestly, though, I think the shareholders have a right to know... After all, they are charged with electing a CEO that is willing and ABLE to run the company, which Steve clearly is not. If he survives this, I'd be surprised. I doubt very much that he'll ever be running Apple from anywhere but a hospital bed or his own bed at home from now on. He's not going to be around much longer.

*Edit: nevermind, he did lie :p ... It's time he own up to all this and step aside so some new blood can breathe fire into Apple before Jobs runs it into the ground with his lies..... And his life.

[neufuse Veteran]

I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. SEC?s Regulation FD were created to help thwart insider trading. Obviously the other executives would know about the issues Jobs faced, or at least that he had health issues. What if we didn't even know that Jobs was on leave, one of the other executives purchased a large sum of shares and then if Jobs did pass away, he sells before it hits the public and then boom he's made a ton a money while the other shareholders are left with nothing.

You can't think about this as Jobs being an individual. HE ISN'T, he a public figure and the shareholders deserve to know what is going on with THEIR company. The shareholders own the company and therefore are entitled to know.

As I obviously don't work for the SEC nor read up on full disclosure laws, it's stuff like that which makes me never want to get famous or make a lot of money by starting a company... I would never want to have to disclose my life just because I run a publicly traded company...... if it was me and I had to do that, I'd just say fine, I quit with no one knowing about it so they can't trade stock in advance of it... but that's me...

but my real point is, if Apple can't stand on it's own without Jobs then they have huge problems that need fixed... a company should never be dependent on a single person being alive or in control...

[Hurmoth]

He didn't lie, but he went out of his way to not disclose the truth... There's a very thin line between these two. Honestly, though, I think the shareholders have a right to know... After all, they are charged with electing a CEO that is willing and ABLE to run the company, which Steve clearly is not. If he survives this, I'd be surprised. I doubt very much that he'll ever be running Apple from anywhere but a hospital bed or his own bed at home from now on. He's not going to be around much longer.

I'm not convinced he didn't lie, or at least Apple. One week the press release states he has a hormone imbalance and then a little over a week later the condition is worse off and he is leaving for six months, then four months later he has a liver transplant.

Yes, it is possible that he didn't know how serious his condition was, but if there was transparency to begin with we wouldn't be wondering if Apple lied and there wouldn't be a SEC investigation.

So there is a real possibility that, at the very least, Apple lied if Jobs didn't to Apple. Remember Jobs didn't actually issue the press release, Apple did on Jobs behalf. I doubt the internal memo that was emailed to employees was even written by him, so it is possible that this is all on Apple and not on Jobs, but shareholders should have been notified though.

As I obviously don't work for the SEC nor read up on full disclosure laws, it's stuff like that which makes me never want to get famous or make a lot of money by starting a company... I would never want to have to disclose my life just because I run a publicly traded company...... if it was me and I had to do that, I'd just say fine, I quit with no one knowing about it so they can't trade stock in advance of it... but that's me...

but my real point is, if Apple can't stand on it's own without Jobs then they have huge problems that need fixed... a company should never be dependent on a single person being alive or in control...

I totally agree. I don't know how some CEOs do it and no one can argue that Jobs is definitely more in the limelight than the average CEO, but the rule is there for a good reason and it should be followed.

As for Apple standing on their own...

Jobs was very critical at bringing Apple to where it is today. He's built a solid foundation that they'd survive just fine without him. However, he has been monumental in bringing to light some of their best creations. He's the CEO, he's the captain of the ship. They have a great crew but without a captain they're sailing blind. Jobs has a very unique vision and helps direct that ship towards creating some really amazing products. Not just products but influence on the various markets they are involved in. They'd wouldn't be screwed without Jobs but with him they advance at a quicker pace.

That quote sums it up nicely as to what Jobs means to Apple. No one is saying Apple will fail if Jobs were to leave or pass away, but Jobs does mean a lot to the company.

I'd also like to point out that Apple is in an extremely better position today than what they were when Jobs first returned to Apple where they needed Microsoft to help bail them out. Jobs and Apple may pick at Microsoft, but that is at a conference that already has Apple fans and I think it is all meant in good humor. I highly doubt Jobs has any negative feelings towards Microsoft because he knows without them they'd be no where.

And if it wasn't for Jobs, Microsoft would never have invested in the company and probably wouldn't have restarted their Office product for the Mac platform, which eventually led Apple into making their own great Office product.

Jobs has done a lot for Apple, more than what most CEOs do for their company.

[instant.human]

i am so speechless.

c'mon guys and gals...

his private life is of no concearn here, you have no given right to judge him because of what he does when he is not at the apple campus.

think about his family, for one time!

i havent read everything in this stunningly long topic and i hope someone has said that before, would be awesome if someone had some sympathy here.

if he is not at apple campus, he is just a man like you and me, who has a right not to tell those freaking apple fanboys what is going on in his life!

seriously... i am an apple fanboy myself to some extend, but this is just dirty...

your topic headline sounds like a reproach that he doesnt let you take part on his private life but that is his freaking RIGHT! he has not a single duty towards us so let him keep for himself what he wants to keep to himself.

geez, are you really serious?

we are talking about death here, the most personal thing in life!

sure, maybe shareholders deserve to know, but MAN! why are you so freaking cold?

afterall he is just a man and not that fancy half-god!

i am sorry if the topic already went in this direction, as i said, i didnt read the whole stuff but guys... come on!

[Miuku.]

if he is not at apple campus, he is just a man like you and me, who has a right not to tell those freaking apple fanboys what is going on in his life!

If you bothered to read the post, which you didn't, you would have noticed the case was not about "fanboys" but about people who own Apple stocks and are getting riled up because they might have lost their almighty dollars if Jobs had kicked the bucket.

Jobs should just move to Europe where we still have personal privacy - even if you're a CEO.

[instant.human]

If you bothered to read the post, which you didn't, you would have noticed the case was not about "fanboys" but about people who own Apple stocks and are getting riled up because they might have lost their almighty dollars if Jobs had kicked the bucket.

Jobs should just move to Europe where we still have personal privacy - even if you're a CEO.

i did mention that aswell, if you had read my post you wouldve noticed.

still, i am still of the same opinion as stated above.

and indeed, in europe you still have personal privacy, even as a CEO. and in my opinion, well deserved, public figure or not.

[ToneKnee]

Many people still believe that if Steve Jobs died or left Apple, Apple would go down the drain again like they did in the 90's. The company should be focusing on how to run by itself without Steve Job's "image", so in future, they can publicly talk about any future health problems without them worrying about their stocks being effected.

[gonzo68]

It's is personal life and problem not related to the business. If every public person need to tell the world all they do soon we should see that X went to the toilet at 6am to do a #2, Y was brushing his teeth around same time while Z was making love with W in plane bathroom. Ridiculous but personal matter are not made to the public, its his decision or not to make it public or not.

[Coldgunner]

His health is nothing to do with anyone else.

If he had an STD or a Varucca, should it be any different? no

His body, his business, No-one elses.

[mrmomoman]

I am amazed that so many people would speak out about his life being personal and say to leave it alone. Jobs is the CEO of a publicy traded company. A company in which innovations such as the Iphone, Ipod and Macs are the lifeline of the company. A change at the helm of a company such as Apple can cause a discord with its investors/share holders in which stock prices can be affected. Unfortunately he represents Apple and he has to act accordingly to the position. When a new CEO is introduced to public companies and the CEO is not regarded as the right "FIT" you will notice stock prices go down sue to the markets beliefs that the "new" CEO might not be able to take the company the right direction. SO IT DOES matter that the stock holders(me) and the board members know what is happening. If Jobs were to pass away due to the cancer or a surgery gone bad then it would affect me and what I would do about my share of Apple stocks. I would short them in the market or sell them off. I can bet you money that the stocks would fall if he pass away or left. It would take a new CEO time before he is trusted to head a company like Apple into the future. There are not many Jobs, Gates, Buffets, or Welches of the world. They made a difference and without them at the helm for so long at their respective companies do you think they would have gotten as far as they did?

[ylcard]

Being such an important figure in Apple, he has no right for privacy, I'm not a shareholder, but if I were to be one, I'd sure as hell want to know when Apple is about to die out.

No one wants to know how many times he has sex every week, who gives a crap ? No one wants to know what his personal issues with his mother or father, people who have a high interest in Apple need to know about his condition.

People said it themselves that if he dies then Apple will have a very hard time recovering, the share prices will drop obviously and it will be a mess - don't you think shareholders want to avoid it by selling their stocks BEFORE it happens ?

You rate privacy so highly for him as if someone really cares about other than if he dies or not.

[instant.human]

Being such an important figure in Apple, he has no right for privacy, I'm not a shareholder, but if I were to be one, I'd sure as hell want to know when Apple is about to die out.

No one wants to know how many times he has sex every week, who gives a crap ? No one wants to know what his personal issues with his mother or father, people who have a high interest in Apple need to know about his condition.

People said it themselves that if he dies then Apple will have a very hard time recovering, the share prices will drop obviously and it will be a mess - don't you think shareholders want to avoid it by selling their stocks BEFORE it happens ?

You rate privacy so highly for him as if someone really cares about other than if he dies or not.

alright so to get this straight for me, i am not quite sure if i got it right...

you say that ... if he dies, the stocks drop? which might very well be right. okay. so far so good.

but are you ****ing serious putting STOCKS before a LIFE of someone?

ever thought of how his family feels like, if they had to read this?!

public figure or not, his bodily condition is of no concearn as long as he is not passed away.

if he passes away and we all thought of his family for one moment for this tragic loss, THEN we can talk about stocks dropping.

but before this day comes, its just so impious....

capitalism really did make mankind callous, i guess.

sad...

[t_r_nelson]

I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. SEC?s Regulation FD were created to help thwart insider trading. Obviously the other executives would know about the issues Jobs faced, or at least that he had health issues. What if we didn't even know that Jobs was on leave, one of the other executives purchased a large sum of shares and then if Jobs did pass away, he sells before it hits the public and then boom he's made a ton a money while the other shareholders are left with nothing.

You can't think about this as Jobs being an individual. HE ISN'T, he a public figure and the shareholders deserve to know what is going on with THEIR company. The shareholders own the company and therefore are entitled to know.

Nowhere in the SEC's regulations does it say anything about revealing medical conditions. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was one of the most comprehensive overhauls to Full Disclosure says nothing about it. I covers everything from a reporting aspect, but it never even touches on medical.

You can complain about it all you want, but it's never going to happen. The SEC can file all the investigations it wants, but there is no way they're gonna get disclosure of medical records.

[Growled Member]

Many people still believe that if Steve Jobs died or left Apple, Apple would go down the drain again like they did in the 90's. The company should be focusing on how to run by itself without Steve Job's "image", so in future, they can publicly talk about any future health problems without them worrying about their stocks being effected.

That's true but I really don't see that happening again. Jobs has built a very good supporting team at Apple. They carried on brilliantly while he was out. I see no reason to think they couldn't continue to do so if they needed to.

[Hurmoth]

Nowhere in the SEC's regulations does it say anything about revealing medical conditions. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was one of the most comprehensive overhauls to Full Disclosure says nothing about it. I covers everything from a reporting aspect, but it never even touches on medical.

You can complain about it all you want, but it's never going to happen. The SEC can file all the investigations it wants, but there is no way they're gonna get disclosure of medical records.

You can think that all you want to, but you are simply wrong.

Apple Broke the Law By Lying About Steve Jobs Health

Apple broke the law by lying about Steve Jobs health, says a top marketing professor.

But whether the Security and Exchange Commission has the “balls” to prosecute is unclear.

Paul Argenti, Professor of Corporate Communication at Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, says that Apple’s communications about its CEO’s health violated the SEC’s full disclosure regulations.

The SEC’s Regulation FD requires “full and fair disclosure by public companies,” but Apple has done neither, says Argenti. At first, Apple said Jobs had a “nutritional imbalance,” but on Friday the Wall Street Journal disclosed that he has undergone a liver transplant.

“The difference between a nutritional imbalance and a liver transplant is huge,” said Prof. Argenti to CoM by phone. “If this is not a legal issue and a Regulation FD issue, I don’t know what is.”

Argenti said Apple clearly knew months ago that Jobs would have to undergo life-saving surgery and had a legal obligation to disclose that.

“The law is very clear — full disclosure of material information,” said Argenti. “If a CEO’s liver transplant isn’t material, what is? But whether the SEC has the balls to do something about it, we’ll see.”

The SEC is reportedly already looking into the company’s handling of Jobs’s health disclosures.

Experts argue that shareholders are legally entitled to information that has material effect on company — and that a CEO’s health is material, especially one as closely tied to the company as Jobs is.

In December, Jobs said he was suffering from an easily treatable hormone imbalance; less than a week later, he said he was taking six months medical leave because his medical issues were “more complex.”

Argenti said the biggest issue is the ethics and the reputation of the company. Apple has severely damaged its trustworthiness and credibility.

“Clearly, this is going to affect not only Apple’s customers but employees that were lied to or kept in the dark about what was going on,” Argenti said. “Apple is one of the most admired companies in America and this is how they deal with this kind of news? It’s unacceptable, unethical and irresponsible to all constituents.”

Argenti said Apple’s miscommunication about Jobs undercuts its slick marketing and hurts its reputation with consumers and investors. “As a communications strategy, it makes no sense.”

“It’s going to be a big issue in the next few days, I guarantee it.”

Jobs was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2004, which appeared to have been successfully treated until 2008, when Jobs lost weight rapidly. On Friday, the Wall Street Journal reported that he had received a liver transplant, suggesting that the cancer had metastasized to the liver.

So far, Apple has neither confirmed or denied the Journal report.

Professor Paul A. Argenti has a BA, Columbia University, 1975; MA, Brandeis University, 1979; MBA, Columbia University, 1981. He teaches of Corporate Communication at Tuck School of Business.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Hurmoth

[+Warwagon MVC]

I wonder how many people here stating that he should be left alone are merely Apple product owners vs shareholders. I am an Apple shareholder, among many other companies, and I for one deserve to know how the company I partially own is being operated, and how the CEO is doing as he makes decisions that directly affect my profit in the company. Unlike a lot of CEOs, Steve Jobs is part of the company and the company is part of him. He makes most of the decisions that make the company what it is, therefore when he is missing from making those decisions the company starts to go down hill.

That hasn't been more truer since he returned than the last six months, and even the last year or two since his health started to decline. The company has produced increasingly minor updates, including the recent iPhone update and this can, without a doubt, be attributed to Jobs' absence.

When this happens shareholders start looking for other companies to invest their money, which makes my shares less valuable and forces me to consider moving my money to another company as well. I didn't, but that isn't the case with every other shareholder.

Stop looking at this situation from a personal point of view because it isn't. If Jobs wanted privacy he shouldn't be CEO of a company, he should be a private citizen far from media attention. But he isn't, he is CEO of a public company and therefore is at the mercy of the shareholders and we deserve to be notified of health issues, despite what everyone else may think.

When investing in a company, who the CEO is, the their health, the health of the company, the direction the company is headed in, etc. all play a factor when determining which company to invest in.

This simply isn't a personal privacy issue, it is a business issue.

QFT

Keeping it quite and saying nothing about your heath is bad enough when you are the CEO of a publicly traded company, but lying about it? It really makes me laugh how many people in this thread are saying he did nothing wrong and he deserves his privacy. As Hurmoth pointed out above, Steve jobs is the CEO of Apple. Would the stock of tanked if he would have told everyone the truth? Maybe. But that is the stock holders right to know. It's their right to have all the information to make a decision about their investment, but instead they are lied to by the CEO. Then what if all of the sudden news is released that "Steve Job died on the operating table"? Can you imagine the outrage of an apple stock holder? When overnight they wake up and their stock is now in the toilet. Let's just say the Apple Lawyers will be working overtime.