Slashdot Mirror
Medical Health Disclosure vs. Steve Jobs' Privacy
An anonymous reader writes "The New York Times is saying that Steve Jobs doesn't have cancer, but that he needs to disclose all the information about his medical condition so investors can decide. Gizmodo's strong rebuttal says that everyone has the right to keep medical records confidential. They argue that, if prominent US presidents legally kept their grave illnesses secret — even while the security of the country was at stake — a simple CEO should be able to do the same: 'Steve Jobs has the right to keep his medical records private for as long as he wants. Like FDR. Like JFK. Like any single person in this country and the world. It's our right, as humans, to do so.'"
I think that Steve Jobs shouldn't have to reveal or talk about anything personal to his company or investors. "He could die, and our stocks could fall," yeah and he could get hit by a car too; that's the reasoning I see them using. I'm sure you can find other random arguments against secrecy, but seriously, is nothing private anymore? Sure if he suddenly dies of cancer everyone will jump ship, but that's only because no one knows who else can invent things at Apple - they need to put other people on display.
As an investor there are so many other things I'd want disclosed more than health records. I wouldn't personally invest in a company that was that precariously positioned.
It's either a completely inaccurate argument about Apple or evidence that Apple is absurdly overpriced as a company. I'm not entirely sure which it is, but surely a properly priced company isn't in such a precarious position where one individual getting hit by a bus would crush it the way that the NY Times is suggesting.
From TFA:
This particular slime-ball obviously uses some definition of "off the record" that I am unaware of.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
If Jobs really was suffering from a terminal illness, I would expect to see him grooming a successor. To the tune of, having someone else up on stage with him, so that if/when he decided to/needed to retire, the transition to the new figurehead would be smooth. I don't really pay any attention to the speculation about Jobs' health, because I am pretty sure that until we see him grooming a successor, he isn't planning on going anywhere.
Of course, I also pay no attention whatsoever to his presentations and press conferences, so I have no idea whether or not he actually *is* grooming a successor. But given that no one ever seems to talk about any personality at Apple besides Jobs, I feel pretty confident with the assumption that he is not.
Hear hear about the truck.
The individual investor's nervousness(that something might happen to SJ) is caused by their speculation, and not knowing what plans there might be at Apple if something happens to him. I'd say due diligence would be contacting the board about what contingency plans they have in place, not messing with SJ. Worrying about his health is one thing, but they can't do much about it anyways, they just want to know, because, as long as he doesn't tell, they aren't sure they HAVE to think about the contingencies. Whereas the reality is they have to think and plan, for those contingencies nonetheless. Even if he is sick, that doesn't give them any advantage, unless he keels over tomorrow(if the disease has a really fixed timeframe). That this affects the stock is a consequence not of the perceived value of the stock, but the perceived lack of leadership at Apple, outside of SJ. Publishing the contingency plans(which are company documents and should be available to shareholders) is the only thing that makes sense.