July 24, 2008 8:27 AM PDT
Ditto
The Macalope has assiduously avoided the "issue" of Steve Jobs' health to date simply because he finds the armchair diagnoses of people who aren't doctors but play them on the Internet to be repugnant. Today, Michael Gartenberg sums up his feelings perfectly:
Steve Jobs health is no one's business except his. That's my last word on this topic.
Mythical beast and rumormonger extraordinaire, the Macalope writes about all things Apple for the CNET Blog Network. Read more at The Macalope: An Apple blog. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
People tend to forget is that hiding behind the emotions, and fanboy-ism, lies a commercial entity, just like any other company that has fiduciary obligations to its investors, and employees. Why do we treat them with a double standard?
The only two arguments that I could possibly fathom that would substantiate your point of view are:
#1. Steve Jobs isn't as vital to the organization as he is portrayed.
#2. As long as the company is doing well, the state of its visionary leader is moot.
#2 is a weak argument because this is a matter of future prospects rather than current prospects. Not only that, there exists the possibility that Job's health issues might be hindering Apple from being even more successful than it already is. I still think his health is relevant.
#1...well...are you willing to concede that?
Well, let's go to an argument you CAN'T possibly: The Law.
Steve Jobs has no legal obligation to tell anyone his medical condition. There are SEC regulations in place that govern certain disclosures, and if that is violated Apple will be judged under that auspice.
Beyond that, nothing.
Your two arguments have absolutely zero bearing on his legal obligations. Their citation is common in our nauseatingly self-serving culture, but they are meaningless.
I was going to say, "Shut up," but that wouldn't be nice.
Boy, someone got a tad bit butt hurt didn't they? I didn't know my comments about Steve Jobs would get you someone so riled up. But then again, people make up for their deficiencies in the real world by becoming an e-thug online.
On a legal level (of which I have a bit of education in myself, so I implore you to not be so assumptive, because in this case you are completely wrong about my education and background), you are fairly correct- however, pragmatically I think you are a bit off base. The public, and especially investors should not be condemned for speculating on the health of a vital visionary force in a company, and asking who the replacement might be.
Claims of a breach of loyalty, duty or care can be fairly subjective, and certainly the health of the officers of the organization are subject to scrutiny since health as a subject isn't precluded by any set of legislation or common law doctrines including RUPA etc.
Your rabid response would lead many to assume that you were absolutely correct in your statement, but the fact of the matter is there isn't definitive law regarding the disclosure of health conditions that might affect the stock price.
http://www.hrexecutive.com/HRE/story.jsp?storyId=86104442
"The issue of executive disclosure is a thorny one with possible legal implications, and an illness that could impact share prices "may run up against securities law," says Peter Cappelli, professor of management and director of the Center for Human Resources at the Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania."
Whether or not Steve Jobs has a legal obligation to disclose the information, especially when it could affect the stock price is still a question to be answered: it isn't already defined as you seem to claim.
It's ok ripragged, if you get beat up in real life, you can go ahead and e-lambast me online. I'll let you. I can see how it would be a tad bit cathartic...but maybe you might want to keep the discussion a bit on-topic and a bit less emotionally charged if you wish to be taken seriously.
Boy, someone got a tad bit butt hurt didn't they? I didn't know my comments about Steve Jobs would get you someone so riled up. But then again, people make up for their deficiencies in the real world by becoming an e-thug online.
On a legal level (of which I have a bit of education in myself, so I implore you to not be so assumptive, because in this case you are completely wrong about my education and background), you are fairly correct- however, pragmatically I think you are a bit off base. The public, and especially investors should not be condemned for speculating on the health of a vital visionary force in a company, and asking who the replacement might be.
Claims of a breach of loyalty, duty or care can be fairly subjective, and certainly the health of the officers of the organization are subject to scrutiny since health as a subject isn't precluded by any set of legislation or common law doctrines including RUPA etc.
Your rabid response would lead many to assume that you were absolutely correct in your statement, but the fact of the matter is there isn't definitive law regarding the disclosure of health conditions that might affect the stock price.
http://www.hrexecutive.com/HRE/story.jsp?storyId=86104442
"The issue of executive disclosure is a thorny one with possible legal implications, and an illness that could impact share prices "may run up against securities law," says Peter Cappelli, professor of management and director of the Center for Human Resources at the Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania."
Whether or not Steve Jobs has a legal obligation to disclose the information, especially when it could affect the stock price is still a question to be answered: it isn't already defined as you seem to claim.
It's ok ripragged, if you get beat up in real life, you can go ahead and e-lambast me online. I'll let you. I can see how it would be a tad bit cathartic...but maybe you might want to keep the discussion a bit on-topic and a bit less emotionally charged if you wish to be taken seriously.
The reason this discussion is particularly poignant with regard to Jobs is because of the ubiquitous perception that the success of the company can be attributed to Jobs. If Ballmer became ill, it would not have nearly the same devastating effect on the stock price as discussions of Job's health. A company with any information that could drastically affect the stock price is almost always obligated to divulge that information...with regard to health, it isn't so black and white because of the expectations of privacy.
I understand where you are coming from ripragged, but unfortunately you are wrong.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/02/news/companies/elkind_jobs.fortune/
Steve Jobs has no legal obligation to disclose his private medical condition. A clear legal precedent might establish that obligation, but as you've pointed out, it doesn't. Therefore it doesn't exist. Case closed.
Feel free to drop by http://rip-ragged.com/dross for a more proper flamewar. The good Mr. Macalope does not allow profanity, and I hate to be so constrained. We can compare deficiencies. Maybe have a little demonstration of "butt hurt."
Jackass.
I love to question, and make fun of, unsupportable assertions and those who present them. Anyway, why would I need to be taken seriously when you're penning schoolboy pseudo-psychologist horse-hockey as your best arguments? Why waste the brain power when it isn't needed.
To all the babbling preceding my two cents worth may I say
Steve Jobs' health is NONE OF MY BUSINESS.
I own shares in Apple which today are worth less than I paid for them and still I will say that
Steve Jobs' health is NONE OF MY BUSINESS.
How many more time can I say it.
NONE OF MY BUSINESS.
Steve Jobs might be Apple but Apple is not Steve Jobs.
Actually, the precedent DOES exist, just because the SEC has no provision for health doesn't mean there aren't SEC regulations that could not be applied to the situation under general fiduciary duty, or duty of care obligations. Have you even bothered to catch up on common law as of late. Also, just because it hasn't been defined doesn't mean the obligation doesn't exist...how do you think precedence is signed. You make up for your argumentative deficiencies by insulting: common rhetorical terrorism for the feeble minded. I also love how you reference schools of thought that you obviously have no experience in. I didn't bother clicking your link- everything makes sense now, you are being abrasive just to lure me into a flame war back and forth with you- a ploy for relevance perhaps. I don't need to cuss to prove my point.
You keep clinging to this idea of there being no legal obligations to Steve Jobs and co, but that is just not even an argument about legality, but rather whether or not stakeholders have the right to speculate and discuss the health of the CEO...which they do, no question.
If you agree that Steve Jobs is absolutely vital to the organization, then the legal case for the obligation of disclosure is very strong, and IS covered by SEC regulation and common law. If you don't than the converse is true. But again, you want to bring the argument to a point in which not only are you wrong, but really wasn't even the original point of contention...it just gave you the most hope of berating the other side- you figured they would be scared off once you proclaimed your acumen for the law, which you obviously lack. Silly you.
@etcook
Stakeholders have a right to discuss anything they want, including the length of Steve Jobs hair and whether he has a booger showing.
Your assertion is still empty. You have still not shown a legal precedent requiring him to disclose his medical condition. No such law exists. If it does, post a link to the LAW or the REGULATION. Otherwise all you are doing is making circular arguments and calling a request for facts a personal attack.
Your victimhood is mildly amusing.
Your point is unmade.
I own enough shares of Apple that the stock price significantly affects the value of my stock portfolio. I can't cite a law, except the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution that protects his privacy. While the amendment doesn't specify it, Katz v. United States in 1967 established a legal precedent for a reasonable expectation of privacy. In short, without a warrant the government cannot require medical records to be opened.
Ergo, Steve Jobs is quite within his legal rights to maintain his medical condition private.
If you merely believe the stockholders retain the right to buy and sell based on whether they feel they have enough information, you're right. Investors have the right to buy and sell based on not being able to find their favorite pair of socks, or because they lost a bet on a football game. Does Steve Jobs owe them a report? Possibly, if there is something significant to tell. Then it would be purely in the interest of protecting the share price from large fluctuations based on specious speculation. That would be rather a silly effort for Apple since large fluctuations based on specious speculations practically defines AAPL. That obligation for disclosure is also not defined in the law as currently written, and would be difficult to prosecute given the legal precedent in Constitutional law.
Stop defending yourself against personal attacks. I'm attacking only your lack of facts. I'd post a link to the lack of a law or regulation, but linking gaps in the space-time continuum is not yet supported in HTML.
Are you stupid, or just pretending to be? I posted two links earlier with experts that state that Jobs should and might have a legal obligation under the doctrines of fiduciary responsibility or duty of care. This is well establish common law, so I don't understand where you get off on saying these obligations don't exist. You can't claim right to privacy on information that materially affects publicly traded commodities, I implore you to prove to ME one bit of law or regulation that states it does.
This post originally was whether or not investors had a right to discuss Jobs, not his legal obligations. YOU were the one that took it down that route, and worse yet, you are wrong. You must be an armchair lawyer that uses rhetorical terrorism to look smart on the internet: I mean, since you CLAIM legal knowledge, you must have it right? You use Katz to substantiate your point? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Honestly, this is classic. You must have search "right to privacy" on Google and just posted the first case that came up, since it has very little relevancy to this discussion. At first I thought you were just a prick that made up for his shortcomings by e-thugging online, now it turns out you are just an armchair lawyer trying to drum up hits for his **** site.
This is not a constitutional law question: your sensationalism proves your shallow depth of knowledge...and also speaks to your puerile nature. You reference legal buzz words as if you know what you are talking about...and you might trick many as a charlatan armchair lawyer, but I implore you to pull that **** with someone who doesn't know what you say is complete and utter BS.
Keep the hits coming ripragged. Between constitutional jurisprudence, and references to protected rights of privacy, I'm on the edge of my seat wondering what other legal concept you are going to throw into the mix next to pretend you know what you are talking about.
I also want to point out that if what you said was true about the right to privacy, Steve Jobs wouldn't have the obligation to notify the board of his illness either...but it is unanimously agreed by experts that this obligation does exist, thus disproving your claim that the right to privacy trumps fiduciary duty or duty of care.
This isn't a constitutional law question.
Your grasping as straws here, and at best trying to define a gray area of law as black and white, all the while interpreting irrelevant law antithetically to its true meaning.
If Steve Jobs were to be run over by a bus tomorrow and die, would he be required to notify the SEC, the Board of Directors or the Shareholders of Apple prior to doing so?
Steve Jobs is not GOD, he is a human being just like all the others that work for Apple Corp., no more no less, a simple human being who has a limited life span just like me and you.
His health and any other personal matters including being run over by a bus are NONE OF MY BUSINESS and if I may be permitted to say so it is also
NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
I thought you were saying he has an obligation to publicly disclose his medical condition. That would seem to be a blanket statement defining a legal obligation every time he has a case of the sniffles or shows up to work with a stiff back. Or every time the blogosphere starts speculating about how he looked at WWDC. (That would be black and white)
Certainly he can be required by the company to disclose his condition to the company. But he can not be required to make it public by law. The government can not insist that it be made public. That is where Constitutional Law is quite relevant.
I quite agree that this is a grey area, hence has not been decided in law. Therefore the obligation for disclosure is based solely in ethics, which are variable with the situation and context. So it isn't established in law one way or the other. This can be illustrated by a lack of a definitive law or regulation that can clearly define the requirement.
What did I miss?
You accuse me of e-thuggery, yet I've been the recipient of far more ad hominem attacks from you than I've posted. Methinks thou dost protest too much. You use a lot of words to answer my posts, but you haven't yet cited a single actual law or regulation. Then you say things like "common law." I think you mean Kantian ethics. But be that neither here nor there. You haven't told me where I can enlighten myself to anything but the opinions of legal scholars, which, in this discussion, irrespective of those opinions' merit or postion, make my case that it IS a grey area. If the law was clear, there would be no need for debate.
Steve Jobs is entirely entitled to his privacy unless and until the law decides differently.
Disagree with that if you like, but I'm done with this discussion. I've been insulted quite enough. And poorly.
Jackass.
This is such an absurd comparison, I was inclined not to respond to it. Notification of a key director with a fatal condition is not Steve Jobs playing God...I suspect your post might have been satirical given its ridiculous nature.
@ripragged
Keep going with the name calling, but it does you no good.
Given his history with cancer, and now knowledge coming up that Steve had to have a surgery to correct his current condition, it is obvious that it is more than a case of the "sniffles". Just as Apple drew fire from industry experts prior, they are getting the same heat from industry experts.
I have cited multiple articles, and even quoted an expert on the matter. I already told you that the basis of the claim would be on fiduciary and duty of care grounds. If you would like me to link to SEC regulations, RUPA, RULPA etc I would be more than happy to.
All of a sudden you say that this is a grey area, when prior you were emphatic that there WAS no legal obligation. Starting to backpedal? It isn't a matter of just subjective ethics, it can be objectively analyzed. If Job's condition is something that the shareholders should be privy to, given the nature of his capacity at Apple, then he is obligated to do so. This is well established under the doctrines of fiduciary responsibility and duty of care.
Right to privacy is not selective in its application. You say one can be required by law to divulge their health to a board of directors, trumping his constitutional rights, but somehow that fiduciary obligation isn't afforded to shareholders?
If you spent less time trying to be an online jackass, and just ripping at people, you might not come out looking like you have a shallow understanding of so many concepts, including the law. You spam the comments with links to your own site as an armchair lawyer armed with google and generic search terms. Oh, how I quake in my boots.
Since I don't own Apple stock, I tend to agree with Macalope, at least regarding my own interest in Job's health. However, if I did own Apple stock, I would tend to disagree with Macalope.
The Constitutional right to privacy also has nothing to do with internal disclosure. The Bill of Rights only limits the power of the government, not private entities such as corporations.
The SEC may establish disclosure rules as a condition of being a publicly traded stock, but that still leaves the option of whether to disclose information to the determination of the individual or company with the possible penalty of being de-listed.
I only called you a jackass because you insist on defending a position that continually changes, or at the very least that you're very bad at explaining. That and the fact that you keep alluding to a resume and a collection of facts that you never produce.
You made an unsupported assertion. I challenged it.
At some point you went off on a tangent about whether investors have the right to DISCUSS the health of a CEO. That was never mentioned in the Macalope's post or anybody else's. Besides which it's absurd to even consider that investors' right to discuss anything can somehow be impeded.
Is it a grey area, or an established law? You can't have it both ways, princess. Pick a team and play.
Good article and I agree with you etcook.
I always love the trolls that magnanimously claim that they will continue the discussion no longer, only to hurry back and post another response.
The current opinion of experts is that it is NOT an option not to tell the Board, regardless of his contractual obligation. You, ripragged, are wrong. There are fiduciary duties associated with his directorship, both to the board, as well as to the shareholders.
The constitutional right to privacy does not trump security law. I don't know why you claim that, nor what your source is, but you are wrong...period...end of story.
Your description of the SEC is spot on, and the current discussion is about whether or not Apple is in fact breaching their SEC obligations or not. My contention is that they ARE probably violating SEC regulations.
I don't need to produce my resume for my arguments to be substantively accurate. You were the one touting your great understanding of the law, which ended up being armchair lawyer accounts based on google searches. Katz? Seriously?
My assertion was very supported, and I have given you multiple links showing expert opinion on Apple's refusal to keep shareholders abreast...you are the one that has chosen to ignore them.
Macalope's original post IS about whether or not it is our right to discuss our health. It wasn't about the legal implications...it was about whether or not it is our business. YOU were the one that went on a tangent about the legal implications, and subsequently proved your knowledge to be quite shallow and unsubstantiated.
Let me explain, because it is quite obvious that you are fairly dense, or bullheaded...
The doctrine of fiduciary responsibility and duty of care are WELL established...both legislatively and within common law. However, law regarding the state of health of a director and how that meshes with fiduciary obligation is more of a grey area, not because the courts have ruled against it...but rather there has not been a definitive case for the courts to rule on. My arguments are based on the former, not the latter. It seems quite logical that an individual vital to an organization would be forced to divulge the state of his health when there are possibly fatal afflictions involved. I don't see how that is such a hard concept to grasp ripragged.
You have been impressive thus far though. You have managed to use about 7 rhetorical terrorism techniques, lied about not continuing the discussion, and proved you have no idea what you are talking. Bravo! Thank you for being the liaison for "THE LAW" as you stated in your op...your presence has been phenomenally enlightening.
Here is some advice: if you are in the legal profession, please quit before you get a malpractice suit.
By, "Steve Jobs' health is no one's business but his," I'm willing to wager the Macalope had no intention other than that Steve Jobs has no reason to publicly discuss his condition. I agree with that. I'm certain, being a regular reader of Macalope, that he did not intend that we should be barred from talking about it. It's an absurd assertion, that neither he nor I would ever make (speaking of strawmen).
Opinions may be based on facts. Opinions are not facts, by their very nature. They are derivative of facts if they have any basis whatsoever. All those opinions you linked mean doodly squat to me. Is it law or isn't it? This situation, you say, has not been judged in law. Therefore, it isn't.
My main point is that NO ONE is legally obligated to publicly discuss his or her medical condition. I stand by that.
An individual with the ethics you claim such expertise in would have dropped the discussion or at least made a few closing factual remarks after I offered to bow out. Anyone else would continue a barrage of personal attacks.
Then on top of all your insults you have the temerity to call me a liar and give me condescending advice?
You write well. Mostly pretty good grammar, few misspelled words, syntax is good. You also have this nasty way of accusing those who antagonize you of stealing your techniques. Rhetorical terrorism indeed.
- by etcook July 25, 2008 8:16 PM PDT
- @ripragged
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (26 Comments)This has truly turned into a pissing match. I have no interest in continuing the discussion as is. We'll just agree to disagree. I honestly just didn't appreciate the way you came out like a rabid attack dog. Even if you disagreed with me, it was unnecessary to act in that manner.
Thank you for your input, it did give me a bit to think about, and I will do more research in the matter. Especially with segments of law that are being currently developed, there is a struggle between multiple rightsholders and which group should deference be shown to. In this particular case I think there are certain obligations and duties that are par of course with a position of Jobs' stature. If he doesn't want to play ball, I implore him to step down, or at least be decent enough to announce an heir. Jobs' is more than welcome to have his privacy, but he wants his cake and wants to eat it too, and that just doesn't fly with me.
I read Macalope's quote literally. The statement itself seems to mean that individuals don't have the right to discuss Job's health, or demand some kind of statements from Apple...it doesn't speak to legal implications at all. You interpret his statement in that context, I didn't. So we will just have to respectfully disagree.