or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Report details Apple's unusual veil of secrecy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Report details Apple's unusual veil of secrecy - Page 2

post #41 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

No, it is not. The company must follow SEC rules on the disclosure of material events. This is not optional. Apple is clearly attempting to skirt these rules where the ability of Steve Jobs to remain in his position is concerned. As the article says, we don't know how by how much they are attempting to skirt the rules because of the wall of secrecy. So it's a deliberately created Catch-22 situation for investors, which sadly, is an invitation to a lawsuit.

How "material" is this event? That's what's being decided.

I do agree with you, with respect to your concerns being legitiamte, if nothing else.

The law currently addresses this only partially. And you're either on one side of the fence, or on the other.

I think we can still get along, just as long as we're on the Apple fence.

And my name-calling will never extend to fellow Apple users. Not even teckstud.
post #42 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Y.M.S.BUSHAN View Post

I think your thoughts are far fetched and IDIOTIC!!

Welcome to the teckstud fan club!
post #43 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

Lots of companies have to "accidentally" leak future product information to generate a buzz and hope it's high enough to generate sales which will usually fall flat after the initial introduction. Apple - like it or not - does not have to do that. Apple has the general public trained very well.

That being said, this kind of news is getting somewhat old. Even as an AAPL owner, I think the media really needs to move on about Jobs' health. It's a private matter. Be done with it. Apple has continued without his direct involvement and done well. The media sad state today just goes to show that they will go after a dead man if need be to generate news to justify their sorry careers.

Apple does it as well, we've had almost daily iPhone "leaks" for the last 6 months. some of these have been pretty blatant like the "unboxing" that was shown a week or so before WWDC where we just saw the device and not much about it. if it was a real "unboxing" by someone that got a hold of an early copy then it would a whole series of videos about every feature
post #44 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by .:R2theT View Post

Just because you hold stock doesn't mean sh!t. Anytime you own stock, you are taking your chances. You are basically gambling. You don't get to see the cards the blackjack dealer is holding so why do you think you get to know some corporations executive's blood-test results.

Your entitlement as it relates to a buck is kind of gross.

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.
post #45 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post

Apple does it as well, we've had almost daily iPhone "leaks" for the last 6 months. some of these have been pretty blatant like the "unboxing" that was shown a week or so before WWDC where we just saw the device and not much about it. if it was a real "unboxing" by someone that got a hold of an early copy then it would a whole series of videos about every feature

Absolutely. In fact the last week or so before the 3GS announcement completely sucked the air of the Pre's balloon. Totally overtook its publicity.
"Some of us are decent people who want to stay out of the emergency room, but still
blast through neo-gridlock traffic in residential districts whenever we feel like it....
For that we need fine...
Reply
"Some of us are decent people who want to stay out of the emergency room, but still
blast through neo-gridlock traffic in residential districts whenever we feel like it....
For that we need fine...
Reply
post #46 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizwarrior View Post

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.

Nope. They may have to abide by laws regarding finances and other things related to the business but not Jobs personal health info. I know you think you deserve that info. but you don't. Now the options backdating thing that would be something to be worried about.

Face it, you just want insider information so you don't take a loss. I understand that. No one likes to lose money. But to say you have the right to know a man's medical conditions/treatments for said medical conditions and such is ridiculous.
"Some of us are decent people who want to stay out of the emergency room, but still
blast through neo-gridlock traffic in residential districts whenever we feel like it....
For that we need fine...
Reply
"Some of us are decent people who want to stay out of the emergency room, but still
blast through neo-gridlock traffic in residential districts whenever we feel like it....
For that we need fine...
Reply
post #47 of 162
I need not go into any detail to propose that the secrecy at Apple is a learned behavior.

If Apple let the world know of all the projects they had in the works, the are those who would beat Apple to market with their own inferior knock-offs, and in so doing, dilute or otherwise ruin the demand.

There is no doubt that Apple's secrecy is tantamount to their success.
post #48 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankenSigns.biz View Post

I need not go into any detail to propose that the secrecy at Apple is a learned behavior.

If Apple let the world know of all the projects they had in the works, the are those who would beat Apple to market with their own inferior knock-offs, and in so doing, dilute or otherwise ruin the demand.

There is no doubt that Apple's secrecy is tantamount to their success.

I agree wholeheartedy.

One of the issues, or questions, rather, is whether Steve Jobs' case deserves special or wider application of disclosure laws, because apparently, we've accorded a bit too much power to him, which in turn, seems to have an effect on the stock price, which is really the fault of otherwise shortsighted or impulsive investors.

In other words, some investors seem to want laws to protect them from themselves.
post #49 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

"Facts" about a company's growth, finances, results, and other infrmation that requires disclosure is different form "Facts" about an executive's personal health or what colour his most recent stool sample was.

Gross misrepresentations of this kind certainly don't make your position look any better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

How "material" is this event? That's what's being decided.

I do agree with you, with respect to your concerns being legitiamte, if nothing else.

The law currently addresses this only partially. And you're either on one side of the fence, or on the other.

I think we can still get along, just as long as we're on the Apple fence.

If Steve became unable to serve as CEO because his health condition turned out to be worse than Apple disclosed, and it turns out the board knew about it, or Steve knew and did not inform the board, then the company will get sued by investors. You can count on that. The rules on the disclosure of CEO health are not totally clear, but Steve being unable to run Apple would arguably be a material event with a fairly obvious impact on share values -- an event, in the terms of the SEC rules, a reasonably prudent investor would like to know.

So no, you don't have to be on one side of the fence or the other. We have a pretty good idea what the SEC rules require, we just don't know if Apple has complied with them BECAUSE they are so secretive.

The damnable irony is that if Apple had only been slightly more up-front about this, then nobody would be talking about it. It's their effort to slam the lid down tight that has caused all the chatter.

Quote:
And my name-calling will never extend to fellow Apple users.

Okay, but it's kind of too late for you to say so.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #50 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Idiotic article, quoting exaggerating 'experts' who don't seem to know much about Apple or SJ.

The reporters are obviously ticked-off that Apple doesn't spoon-feed them.

Agreed.
post #51 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Gross misrepresentations of this kind certainly don't make your position look any better.



If Steve became unable to serve as CEO because his health condition turned out to be worse than Apple disclosed, and it turns out the board knew about it, or Steve knew and did not inform the board, then the company will get sued by investors. You can count on that. The rules on the disclosure of CEO health are not totally clear, but Steve being unable to run Apple would arguably be a material event with a fairly obvious impact on share values -- an event, in the terms of the SEC rules, a reasonably prudent investor would like to know.

So no, you don't have to be on one side of the fence or the other. We have a pretty good idea what the SEC rules require, we just don't know if Apple has complied with them BECAUSE they are so secretive.

The damnable irony is that if Apple had only been slightly more up-front about this, then nobody would be talking about it. It's their effort to slam the lid down tight that has caused all the chatter.



Okay, but it's kind of too late for you to say so.

An actionable offense does not a successful lawsuit make.

All we can really do is see how far this goes.
post #52 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

No big story here- Apple lies and Steve Jobs will eventually die.

This is true and something that a lot of people don't seem to get. Everyone dies (and no one has ever come back so far.)

The whole concept of "saving someone's life" is false. All you can do is postpone the inevitable and do as much good for as many people as you can while you're here.

Like, everyone is all shocked lately that Farah Fawcett Majors having cancer and her life "can't be saved," but she is 62 years old and kept it at bay for ten years at least. You can't ask for much more than that.

Edit: I don't agree with the "Apple lies" part above. They ... dissemble and mislead?
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #53 of 162
Hhmmmmm...

The NYT doing an article about "secrecy"... and the Times is one to talk!

I'm sure I can waltz right up to the NYT and demand of the 'Grey Lady' to be in on the morning editorial meeting regarding the today's theme of how to bash President Bush or make President Obama "The One" and to downplay a distressed economy and make very little mention of the deaths of US troops still in Iraq, yadda, yadda, yadda...

As our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, once said to General Petraeus, can be applied to any story coming out of todays media and especially the Times, and that is that it requires "a willing suspension of disbelief."

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
post #54 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

No, it is not. The company must follow SEC rules on the disclosure of material events. This is not optional. Apple is clearly attempting to skirt these rules where the ability of Steve Jobs to remain in his position is concerned. As the article says, we don't know how by how much they are attempting to skirt the rules because of the wall of secrecy. So it's a deliberately created Catch-22 situation for investors, which sadly, is an invitation to a lawsuit.

I think the loophole they will bring up is the fact that *technically* he was not CEO at the time of the transplant. I know it's kind of dumb and self-serving on a practical level for them to say that but in a court of law it's enough for them not to be sued or fined or whatever.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #55 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

An actionable offense does not a successful lawsuit make.

All we can really do is see how far this goes.

A big mess, it very likely does make. Do you remember the long, tortuous period when Apple was being investigated for stock option violations? Every time it was suggested that Steve might be forced out over this, AAPL took another tumble. It also caused a major distraction. The options scandal too often overshadowed products in the media. That's just plain bad business.

Apple's famous secrecy serves the company very well where product development is concerned, but very poorly where company events are concerned. They are practically daring investors to sue over this. Investor relations has always been a weak point for Apple. Some of us wish they'd fix this.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #56 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Gross misrepresentations of this kind certainly don't make your position look any better.

If Steve became unable to serve as CEO because his health condition turned out to be worse than Apple disclosed, and it turns out the board knew about it, or Steve knew and did not inform the board, then the company will get sued by investors. You can count on that. The rules on the disclosure of CEO health are not totally clear, but Steve being unable to run Apple would arguably be a material event with a fairly obvious impact on share values -- an event, in the terms of the SEC rules, a reasonably prudent investor would like to know.

So no, you don't have to be on one side of the fence or the other. We have a pretty good idea what the SEC rules require, we just don't know if Apple has complied with them BECAUSE they are so secretive.

The damnable irony is that if Apple had only been slightly more up-front about this, then nobody would be talking about it. It's their effort to slam the lid down tight that has caused all the chatter.

You better read up on what the SEC mandates. You are so far off base, it is a travesty that you opinions are on record.

Perhaps a light review is in order. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...shealth23.html

By the way, the quotations are referenced to Charles Elson, director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware. I would suspect that his knowledge and expertise in this matter far exceeds yours. If not, we would all be please to view your credentials. Otherwise, your silence would be appreciated.

And, not that you are entitled to your opinion, unless verified, some of your comments are tantamount to libel, IMO. Certainly, malicious intent.
post #57 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple employees working on secret projects must "pass through a maze of security doors, swiping their badges again and again and finally entering a numeric code to reach their offices," a former employee who recently worked in one of these areas told the Times.

Once inside these top-secret areas, employees are often monitored by surveillance cameras as they work. And those testing the most sensitive projects are instructed "to cover up devices with black cloaks when they are working on them, and turn on a red warning light when devices are unmasked so that everyone knows to be extra-careful."

So it IS like the iPhone ads! I thought that was all staged
post #58 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

You better read up on what the SEC mandates. You are so far off base, it is a travesty that you opinions are on record.

Perhaps a light review is in order. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...shealth23.html

This article nailed it. Would it make sense for Apple to make some disclosures? Maybe. Do they have to? Not at all.

I don't understand why anyone who is potentially worried about the health of Steve Jobs would invest in Apple. For f**ks sake, he's a cancer survivor. Pancreatic cancer at that. From what I understand he has beaten the survival rate odds for such an illness. It seems like he is already living on borrowed time. If a person isn't comfortable with that why would they invest in the company he is leading?
"Some of us are decent people who want to stay out of the emergency room, but still
blast through neo-gridlock traffic in residential districts whenever we feel like it....
For that we need fine...
Reply
"Some of us are decent people who want to stay out of the emergency room, but still
blast through neo-gridlock traffic in residential districts whenever we feel like it....
For that we need fine...
Reply
post #59 of 162
For those of you who are mad that Apple didn't disclose the liver transplant issue: it is none of your f(*&^king business. That is his personal life, and if you are so tied to your stupid stocks that you have to read this everyday and count your pennies, it obviously shows how selfish, single-minded, and greedy you are. Apple and Jobs are super shrewd and ethical, and they just play the game of business very well. There is nothing illegal here about what they did nor unethical as medicine and health constantly reveal things that may be unknown at the time of diagnosis; nevertheless, there are no rules that state you must disclose if you have surgery. That's his private life and you should be more concerned with yours than his. I pray to God you get a life and let Steve do his thing, and more importantly, you do your thing. Apple's success and stock price is just icing on the cake to this wonderful life. Shame on people like you who make it their entire world.
post #60 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by .:R2theT View Post

This article nailed it. Would it make sense for Apple to make some disclosures? Maybe. Do they have to? Not at all.

I don't understand why anyone who is potentially worried about the health of Steve Jobs would invest in Apple. For f**ks sake, he's a cancer survivor. Pancreatic cancer at that. From what I understand he has beaten the survival rate odds for such an illness. It seems like he is already living on borrowed time. If a person isn't comfortable with that why would they invest in the company he is leading?

Thanks for recognizing the articles value.

However, I have to take exception to the second last line. It may be an opinion, but one of questionable taste. Unless, that is, you understand that we are all living on borrowed time.

As Thomas Full once said, Birth is the beginning of death.
post #61 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

Everyone dies (and no one has ever come back so far.)

Counting the Christians and the Hindus, Id say that at least 2.2 Billion people would disagree with you, though if coming back to life simply means any sort of after life then that number jumps considerably.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #62 of 162
I personally have not read Apples 10K but I imagine they do like many companies which are require by law to disclose any risk to the business and many time they list the lost of key personally as risk to future business. If Apple did this I could see that they done their ethical responsible to inform the investment community there is risk to the company future performance if for any reason they lose one of these key people.

No where does it say they must disclose the exact risk like medical or death or being recruited away to another company, those are easily assumed.

Many companies list this in their 10K as a potential business risk, that you must take into consideration before making you investment. I personally understand Apple's business so well that I do not bother reading their 10K, like I have done with other companies.

If you have not read Apple's 10K and other disclosure documents, stop complaining about them hiding stuff and read the 10K and associated documents and see if they made the disclosure.
post #63 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

You better read up on what the SEC mandates. You are so far off base, it is a travesty that you opinions are on record.

Perhaps a light review is in order. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...shealth23.html

By the way, the quotations are referenced to Charles Elson, director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware. I would suspect that his knowledge and expertise in this matter far exceeds yours. If not, we would all be please to view your credentials. Otherwise, your silence would be appreciated.

And, not that you are entitled to your opinion, unless verified, some of your comments are tantamount to libel, IMO. Certainly, malicious intent.

Useful report, and that's essentially what I've been getting at. It's been stated time and time again that health issues are not considered material.

Whether people would like the application of the disclosure law widened is a different matter. Perhaps a case can be made for that. I personally don't think so.

And the question of whther Apple lied or somehow misled people on this issue remains an open question. It was, however, made clear by Apple early on, at least implicitly, that they would not be directly addressing the health issue.

Apple and Steve Jobs made it clear that Steve would be leaving for a time, but will stay on in some limited capacity. That's all. This was clear. Whether people are entitled to more is the question. I really don't think they are.
post #64 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Y.M.S.BUSHAN View Post

That is true, eventually every one dies including you. But the difference is what they have achieved before they die. What have you done that is good for the world?

Also there is difference between lies and not giving the information you do not have to give. If one is lying to extract money from you, that is different from telling something to protect yourself. I think your thoughts are far fetched and IDIOTIC!!

I suggest you read the article first before making statements like that.
post #65 of 162
The article says the secrecy is so high that new products are often covered under black cloaks. This explains how they could ever let loose those infamous high glossy screens. No glare under black cloaks.
post #66 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

Edit: I don't agree with the "Apple lies" part above. They ... dissemble and mislead?

I guess it all depends on where your defintion of the word lies lies.
post #67 of 162
I'm no legal expert, but couldn't Jobs have sued Apple under the terms of the Health Information Privacy Act had they disclosed anything beyond what he approved them to? I think this covers all employees regardless of rank or status.
post #68 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

I guess it all depends on where your defintion of the word lies lies.

Whats funny is your misuse of the word lies.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #69 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Whats funny is your misuse of the word lies.

Funnier than that is that you've yet to realize that we don't talk the Queen's English here in the USA.
post #70 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Funnier than that is that you've yet to realize that we don't talk the Queen's English here in the USA.

1) We are on a message board on the internet crossing all borders.

2) The correct usage of lie and lay is taught in elementary schools across the United States.

3) Being home schooled by Helen Keller isnt something to brag about. (just sayin)
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #71 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

However, I have to take exception to the second last line. It may be an opinion, but one of questionable taste. Unless, that is, you understand that we are all living on borrowed time.

As Thomas Full once said, Birth is the beginning of death.

Obviously we are all on the road to death. My point is that it is disingenuous for investors/stockholders to come out and say "But my portfolio went down in value because Steve Jobs didn't disclose that he had [insert potential illness here], Apple should be investigated and/or sued."

He had CANCER! Everybody knows it. That makes him very much more likely to get it again along with a whole host of other possibilities. Investors who don't like that shouldn't invest in Apple.
"Some of us are decent people who want to stay out of the emergency room, but still
blast through neo-gridlock traffic in residential districts whenever we feel like it....
For that we need fine...
Reply
"Some of us are decent people who want to stay out of the emergency room, but still
blast through neo-gridlock traffic in residential districts whenever we feel like it....
For that we need fine...
Reply
post #72 of 162
[QUOTE=solipsism;1438828]
Quote:
1) We are on a message board on the internet crossing all borders.

NO- really?

Quote:
2) The correct usage of lie and lay is taught in elementary schools across the United States.

I'm supposed to remember that far back?


Quote:
3) Being home schooled by Helen Keller isnt something to brag about. (just sayin)

If I were home schooled by Helen Keller - I would brag about it- a remarkable human being.


Where the 4th insult- why did you stop?
It was a play on words- that's all. Geesh- where's my spoon for you.
post #73 of 162
Is it really 'unprecedented'? Do all the CEOs of all the millions of listed companies have their medical details presented to the public? How much of Steve Jobs's iconic status comes from him and how much from a baying press?

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

Reply

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

Reply
post #74 of 162
Here's a good article ->Business 101: Must Apple discuss CEO Jobs' health?
"So do investors across corporate America have the right to know this sort of information as they struggle to manage their recession-hit portfolios? What are the rules under U.S. securities laws?"

"Q: Why did news about Jobs' liver transplant come from The Wall Street Journal and not from Apple?

A: Companies don't have to give updates on their executives' health. That is typically not considered "material information," which must be disclosed under rules put forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

"Nothing is required to be disclosed unless the health issue affects his ability to steward the company appropriately," said Charles Elson, director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware.

Jobs also has been on medical leave since January, which means he technically isn't working for the company in an executive capacity."
post #75 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by delreyjones View Post

I was disappointed to read this in the NY Times, and even more here in AI. Please, somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection is that first, Apple said Jobs' weight loss was due to a "hormone imbalance". Then, a few weeks later, they elaborated only a tiny bit and said the problem was "more complex" (than the hormone imbalance). I have no reason to believe that when they said "hormone imbalance" that they knew it was more complex. That sort of confusion followed by more illumination is common for medical problems.

When they realized the problem was more serious, my attitude was that "more complex" was all the detail I needed. At the time I realized it might mean metastasized cancer or something equally serious. Apple also told us it would require six months leave of absence, so it was obviously serious. They told us the truth at the high level, but they didn't tell us any low level details, which we never needed.

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/01/steve-jobs-heal/
2011 13" 2.3 MBP, 2006 15" 2.16 MBP, iPhone 4, iPod Shuffle, AEBS, AppleTV2 with XBMC.
Reply
2011 13" 2.3 MBP, 2006 15" 2.16 MBP, iPhone 4, iPod Shuffle, AEBS, AppleTV2 with XBMC.
Reply
post #76 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizwarrior View Post

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.

Show us what portions of the law require a company to detail the health state and care information of an employee not currently acting as an officer.
post #77 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by tt92618 View Post

Show us what portions of the law require a company to detail the health state and care information of an employee not currently acting as an officer.

Actually, I'd like to add to that challenge to bizwarrior: Show us what portions of the law require a company to detail the health state and care information of an employee whether or not (s)he is currently acting as an officer.
post #78 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizwarrior View Post

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.

If you may, I would like to apologize for those who have debased your intelligence, knowledge and expertise. I must admit that that you are quite possibly correct on the law that covers your assertion.

I have just one question. And if you would respond to such, I will do my best to support your position. So please, where do you live? I surmise that it is not on Continental North America, South America Europe, Africa, Oceania or Asia. I must admit, I know very little of Antarctica.

Oh, and if it is in a special institution, I promise I will keep any information that you wish to disclose confidential. Unless of course, there is a law that says otherwise.
post #79 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Actually, I'd like to add to that challenge to bizwarrior: Show us what portions of the law require a company to detail the health state and care information of an employee whether or not (s)he is currently acting as an officer.

If I am not mistaken, an officer of the company is obliged to disclose any such information to the board, but the board is not obliged to tell anybody without the consent of the officer.
post #80 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

1) We are on a message board on the internet crossing all borders.

2) The correct usage of lie and lay is taught in elementary schools across the United States.

3) Being home schooled by Helen Keller isnt something to brag about. (just sayin)

I would like to step in and defend teckstud: what he wrote is correct in English. I am happy to take your word that it is incorrect in American.

Therefore his post my have, once again, been an incoherent rant but it was grammatically correct - although not necessarily in the language he was trying to write in.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Report details Apple's unusual veil of secrecy