In particular, the commission is reportedly scrutinizing statements from the company to determine what happened in the nine days from when it reported that Steve Jobs' medical condition was ârelatively simpleâ to when it ultimately disclosed that there were âmore complex" problems, a person with knowledge of the probe told Bloomberg.
Regulators reportedly want to know what Apple's board of directors knew between January 5th, when Apple said Jobs was suffering from an easily treatable hormone imbalance, and January 14th, when the co-founder penned an open letter to the media in which he stated that his health-related issues were more complex than he originally thought.
Jobs would go on to take a medical leave for nearly six months, during which time he received a liver transplant in Memphis, Tenn. At the time of the transplant, he was reportedly the sickest person on the waiting list.
A person familiar with the ongoing investigation told Bloomberg that Apple's lead directors, Art Levinson and Bill Campbell, were being briefed by Jobsâ doctors on his condition during the time the company issued its contradictory statements. Should it be determined by regulators that Apple only told partial truths, its statements could be considered misleading.
Still, the ongoing review is said to be just that: a review. And there's currently no indication that the SEC is prepared to charge Apple or its directors with any wrongdoing.
53 Comments
Why not? They may as well test how flimsy their argument is when juxtaposed with the right to privacy and HIPAA legislation.
Just because someone is a CEO doesn't give people Carte Blanche to know everything about their personal life in particular their health record.
I think people are being windbags here. If you think you have a case ...lawyer up and bring a fire retardant suit.
To whom it may concern:
Apple CEO Steve Jobs has a hangnail today.Thank You.
Maybe they should look into the monopoly on the money supply / money press, releasing of lies and hiding the truth from tax payers on the 'health of America' in regards to politicians ability to be objective, coercion in big government and the two party system and big business. Whilst moving along, maybe they could tell us the truth on Barry Soetoro.
Why is it http://barrysoetoro.com/ and http://www.whitehouse.gov/ show the same page?
Anyone, anyone, anyone?
I buy, use and benefit from Apple products (and am using one to type this) so although I have an inclination to favor Apple, I most certainly cannot endorse Apple's choice to deliberately deceive the media about their most important member's health conditions.
People rely on the information that Apple reveals to the media. I would be more supportive of Apple in they had instead decided to said nothing instead of blatantly and straightforwardly lie like the company spokespeople did in this case. Not communicating about important matters that will affect their followers is an irresponsible thing for a prominent leader to do and Steve Jobs can and should do better than this. I respect many decisions that Steve makes but I certainly don't respect this one.
I buy, use and benefit from Apple products (and am using one to type this) so although I have an inclination to favor Apple, I most certainly cannot endorse Apple's choice to deliberately deceive the media about their most important member's health conditions.
People rely on the information that Apple reveals to the media. I would be more supportive of Apple in they had instead decided to said nothing instead of blatantly and straightforwardly lie like the company spokespeople did in this case. Not communicating about important matters that will affect their followers is an irresponsible thing for a prominent leader to do and Steve Jobs can and should do better than this. I respect many decisions that Steve makes but I certainly don't respect this one.
However, they knew that the market and the media would over-react, and they would have been correct. At the time he was NOT the CEO, so they DID follow the letter of the law.