Report details Apple's unusual veil of secrecy - Page 4

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

And if you did, you would not be required to let the world know about it. Move along....

Originally Posted by Fritzler

Loose Lips Sink Ships. Remember this, always

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

This "veil of secrecy" at Apple has proven to be remarkably effective, particularly with respect to product development and marketing.

The advantages far outweigh the costs.

And as for Steve Jobs' health, Apple is not required by law to disclose sweet f**k all to anyone. Those who are critical of Apple about this are either morally reprehensible themselves or just plain stupid.

Originally Posted by chadisawesome

while I see the financial reasons for maintaining this site, I'm shocked that after being treated so rudely by apple's legal department, this site still refuses to report negatively toward anything about apple.

I GET the fascination with the company, posts like this that show the dark underbelly of what goes on at Apple are really interesting. I'm just shocked that if I ran a site, say, for I dunno, a band I liked, and then the band tried to sue me. I would probably continue the blog, especially if it brought in cash, but I would have a hard time being so blindly postive and, I dunno a better word for it, but I wouldn't be quite as ball-sucking as Apple Insider is at times with it's articles, particularly with reviews and any news having to do with microsoft...

while I expect a favortism toward mac products here, sometimes the apple blinders are up in full force, and it's hard to find an objective point of view.

Originally Posted by bizwarrior

My entitlement is due to the fact I invested hard earned money into their stock and I have a right under the law to such important information. If Apple does not want to abide by the law or wants this type of privacy then let them take that stockpile of cash and take the company private.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

The word "presumptively" is the key here. Those are the items which must be disclosed. Other material events are arguably covered by the general need to disclose material events. Note also that this list is seven years old, and the document says that this list was expected to be expanded. I believe it was under Sarbanes-Oxley.

Originally Posted by brucep

We have a dr. here who thinks its the law for a man heath to be of public record.

Originally Posted by tt92618

Again, if you can show us where Apple was required, under the law, to disclose SJ's (still alleged) liver transplant, (allegedly) undertaken during a period in which he was not serving as a corporate officer, under any law, then please do it.

Originally Posted by AppleInsider



1) Apple marketing chief Phil Schiller is said to be among the members of Apple's top brass who play an integral role in helping to track down employees who disclose advance product information to members of the press. At times, it's reported, he has held internal product briefings in which he's disseminated inaccurate details of an upcoming product's prices or features, then attempts to track down the source of news reports that print the incorrect information.

2) The Times even recalls a widely publicized case five years ago in which Apple attempted to subpoenaed AppleInsider's Kasper Jade and the PowerPage's Jason O'Grady to force them to identify sources who provided accurate details of an unreleased hardware product code-named Asteroid. The journalists refused to cooperate and instead enlisted the services of the Electronic Frontier Foundation as their counsel.

Eventually, the case went to court with Apple arguing that online journalists shouldn't be afforded the same protections as print journalists. A three-judge panel in the California Court of Appeals ultimately sided unanimously in favor Jade and O'Grady, ruling that they were indeed entitled to the same protections as conventional reporters and would not have to identify their sources. During the proceedings, the court made it clear to Apple that it had no grounds to railroad online reporters into doing their dirty work of uncovering leakers.





3) But Apple's veil of secrecy covers more than just products.

that Mr. Jobs was suffering only from a hormonal imbalance seem like a deliberate mistruth, unless Mr. Jobss health condition suddenly deteriorated."

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

The word "presumptively" is the key here. Those are the items which must be disclosed. Other material events are arguably covered by the general need to disclose material events. Note also that this list is seven years old, and the document says that this list was expected to be expanded. I believe it was under Sarbanes-Oxley.

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

I have no idea what you are talking about. And, you obviously know little about Sarbanes-Oxley.

I don't wish to engage you in a discussion on this at this time. I am sure opportunities will present themselves in the future, given your predilections to make sweeping statements.........

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

I'm not surprised, especially since I've made no "sweeping statements" that you've made any effort to actually identify. I have only pointed out the conflicting explanations the experts have offered about the need for event reporting.

Originally Posted by wilco

Jobs could shit on their beds in the middle of the night, and they'd call it a pillow mint.

Originally Posted by wilco

these guys would rather lose a nut before they would say anything even slightly disparaging about Apple?

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

And as for Steve Jobs' health, Apple is not required by law to disclose sweet f**k all to anyone. Those who are critical of Apple about this are either morally reprehensible themselves or just plain stupid.

Originally Posted by teckstud

There is another, just as important article, not mentioned today by AppleInsider, on whether or not Steve Jobs jumped the line for his new liver.
Here it is:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0...er-transplant/

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

In Mr. Jobs’s case, doctors say there was no need, and little opportunity, to cheat the system. Under current procedures, any transplant center ranks potential liver recipients on its waiting list, with the highest rankings based on how sick the patients are and how long they have been that sick. Jumping ahead of a sicker patient is not allowed.

Ok.

Originally Posted by teckstud

So does that means he was pretty damn sick then? Metastatic cancer is some serious shit.

Originally Posted by wilco

Why do you keep arguing with them?

You've been here two months, and you haven't figured out yet that these guys would rather lose a nut before they would say anything even slightly disparaging about Apple?

Jobs could shit on their beds in the middle of the night, and they'd call it a pillow mint.

Originally Posted by pmz

^ This. This whole situation really aggravates me, and other's unbelievable obsession with other's lives...purely sickens me.

I don't care HOW much I have invested in Apple, it doesn't buy my juicy details on mr. steve jobs. I wish him the best of health and a speedy recovery, but if he doesn't want me know, then I don't want to know.

That's how an adult deals with such a situation, fwiw.

Originally Posted by teckstud

So does that means he was pretty damn sick then? Metastatic cancer is some serious shit.

Originally Posted by wilco

Why do you keep arguing with them?

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

I don't know how sick he was or how advanced his cancer was. Only his doctors really know all the facts.

Originally Posted by brucep

Still your eyes remained glued at this sad car wreck ?

Originally Posted by a_hnau

I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment, but that's the most succinct and laugh-out-loud characterisation of Apple addicts I've ever heard

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

Sarbanes-Oxley changed the 8-K disclosure requirements for public corporations. Made them tougher and required them to be made in a more timely fashion. You could look it up. I did. The very document you cited pointed out that the rules were about to get tougher. They did.

Originally Posted by wilco

Are you referring to Jobs' condition, or your series of illiterate posts?

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

He wasn't actually attacking anyone. He was simply surprised that the topic has to get so much attention. I don't see any reason for you to attack him personally.

At least he doesn't have profanity in his sig. If we're questioning literacy, we might as well question taste.

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

What Sarbanes-Oxley did, primarily, was to speed up the filing of the 8K (Section 409 of the Act). There were some additional clarifications of items already there, and a few items of disclosure were added --none of those remotely deals with health of the CEO.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

"Presumptive" is an important term of legal art -- it refers to things which can be assumed to be covered by a law, but it doesn't necessarily end there. Other things can be arguably covered by a law because of what the law generally intends to do. In this case, the law intends to require public corporations to disclose material events that a "reasonably prudent investor" might want to know about a company before buying or selling a stock. That's a pretty wide target.

Originally Posted by DocNo42

Then don't buy the stock.

I seriously wish more companies were like the CEO of Costco and tell Wall Street to pretty much take it or leave it. All this pandering to stockholders is a serious limiter of innovation. I think the stock market is a serious parasite on corporate innovation.

You can't serve multiple masters. You are either in it for your customers or you are in it for your shareholders. Personally I would rather do business with a company that is in it for their customers.

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

There are two other keywords that you cite: "material" and "reasonably prudent investor." You can drive a truck through both of those, especially if, as a board, you have met all the criteria of the business judgment rule.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

I think Apple can avoid this risk entirely by being just a little more transparent. As a stockholder, I wish they would.

Apple's silence on Steve Jobs' health may have broken federal securities rules

Firms aren't required to disclose medical details about executives, lawyers say. But they are required to divulge 'material' information investors should know before buying or selling stock.
By David Sarno and Walter Hamilton

June 25, 2009

Reporting from Los Angeles and New York Steve Jobs' medical condition turned out to be more serious than Apple Inc. officials had previously acknowledged -- and that has analysts and legal experts questioning whether the company ran afoul of federal securities rules.

Apple had disclosed in early January that Jobs had a "hormone imbalance" and would take a leave of absence, but never said he was so sick that he needed a liver transplant.

Companies are not required to divulge medical details about executives, lawyers said. But they are required to disclose "material" information, which is defined as what a reasonable investor would need to know to make an informed decision on buying or selling stock.

"If they tried to lessen the disclosure and make it misleading by omission, that's just as bad as telling something that flat isn't true," said Jeffrey C. Soza, a securities lawyer at Glaser, Weil, Fink, Jacobs, Howard & Shapiro in Los Angeles.

The Tennessee doctor who led the transplant team said this week that Jobs was "the sickest patient on the waiting list" at the time a donor liver became available.

Dr. James D. Eason said that Apple's key man had tested high -- more likely to die from the condition -- on an index that rates patients with end-stage liver disease.

But all that investors or the public knew came from two brief statements on Apple's website. The first, about the hormone imbalance, was followed a week later by one from Jobs saying his health issue was "more complex" and would require a six-month leave.

The Cupertino, Calif., company has maintained that the initial statement was enough to satisfy disclosure rules imposed on publicly traded companies. But some analysts aren't so sure. Intentionally downplaying the extent of such an illness could set Apple on the wrong side of securities laws, Soza said.

Investor Warren E. Buffett agreed that Apple had been less than forthright. "Certainly Steve Jobs is important to Apple," he said in a CNBC-TV interview Wednesday. "Whether he is facing serious surgery or not is a material fact."

The state of Jobs' health has long been a subject of popular discussion, including his surgery for pancreatic cancer in 2004 and his widely observed weight loss that preceded his leave of absence. With that information in the public sphere, some experts say Apple fulfilled its legal obligation by saying that Jobs was on medical leave.

"His health is a matter of private information, which the board may be in possession of but has no affirmative obligation to disclose," said G. William Speer, a lawyer at Bryan Cave in Atlanta.

Jobs, who founded Apple in 1979, is widely considered a visionary whose products have repeatedly allowed the company to reinvent itself and stay ahead of the competition. His importance to the company fuels the debates on how much information about his health is material for investors.

"Steve is Apple," said Danielle Levitas, an analyst for industry research firm IDC. "The company was on the skids, and he came back to revive them. No doubt, if he were gone, it would be a different company. There aren't a whole lot of people out there like Steve Jobs."

Nor are there many companies whose fate seems so closely tied to that of a single person, said Stephen Davis, a corporate governance expert at Yale University's Millstein Center for Corporate Governance and Performance.

"Whether he's able to come back, in what capacity and when are all highly relevant to Apple's owners," Davis said. "We're in the middle of huge financial crisis that's been caused in part by huge failures of corporate governance. This is an age when you would hope corporations would get that shareholders need some pretty high-quality disclosure."

The Securities and Exchange Commission declined to comment on the situation.

The revelation of Jobs' illness riled critics because it comes on the heels of long-standing displeasure with Apple's secretive culture and what detractors say is its grudging disclosure of important issues.

"Across the board the company is tight-lipped and tends to hold information close to its vest," said Patrick McGurn, special counsel at RiskMetrics Group, a New York advisor to large investors on governance issues. "This isn't an isolated issue with Apple. It's a major concern at this point."

Apple agrees with Speer's view that Jobs' health is a private matter, and it has said almost nothing about it even after news of the liver transplant.

"Steve continues to look forward to returning to Apple at the end of June," reiterated Apple spokesman Steve Dowling.

He noted that the Tennessee doctors were "authorized" to release their statement late Tuesday about Jobs' condition, but declined to comment on whether Apple should have said more to investors.

Dowling also said none of the eight members of the board of directors would be available to comment. Former Vice President Al Gore and current and former chief executives of Google Inc., Genentech Inc. and Intuit Inc. declined to comment. Three other directors did not return calls.

Originally Posted by nautilus.

Secrecy makes Apple products sexier and more exciting.

It would be boring if they lay down their product roadmap like many other companies do.