Discussion Case: Is Steve Jobs Health a Private Matter?

Discussion Case: Is Steve Jobs Health a Private Matter?

In this particular case is Steve Jobs a private matter? I personally agree with Apple because they have to go with a legal point of view. The company has a duty to disclose information that is material facts a reasonable investor would need to know in order to make an informed decision about whether to buy or sell the company's stock. Materiality can be difficult to establish and if litigation ensues, lawyers will argue at length over exactly what Apple should have revealed and when.

In general, the company has an ethical obligation to alert investors and others stakeholders to serious risks to the company's health. Because Apple and its CEO have actively encouraged the Apple community to associate the company's success with his leadership, they have an obligation as well to keep stakeholders apprised of serious risks to Jobs health.

I also believe that Steve Jobs health is a private matter. If it was a life threatening illness, it might be material, but since it's not life threatening, it is therefore a private matter. Even as an investor in Apple, which I am not, they have no right to know the details of Steve Jobs personal health under the circumstances described. The stock is not off because of the perceived illness of jobs, but because the Apple forecast was much lower than analysts expected, especially their lower gross margin forecast all the way into 2009.

As to Apple's secrecy, I applaud them. In this competitive world, keeping your cards so close to the vest is a key strategic advantage. The investors know perfectly well what's going on at Apple, when they need to know it, such as when the next product is introduced, or the official announcement is made about the next release of the operating system.

In the United States health privacy is cherished and firmly protected under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.