MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Jul 26, 08 - 10:23 am Comment from: BiZarRo BaLlmEr

A journalist that needs to appear relevant.

Jul 26, 08 - 10:34 am Comment from: fastmemory

As a subscriber to the NYT, I read the article in this morning's paper. I am a big fan of Apple and Steve Jobs, but I agree with the article. SJ is a genius, but he is definately not off limits to concerns or criticism.

Apple is probably the top tech company at the moment, with hundreds of thousands of employees, and both direct and indirect stockholders to answer to. Any billionaire CEO that runs one of the world's top companies loses some of his or her privacy. Deal with it. That's the same advice that other celebrities should follow. Nobody held a gun to your head and demanded you get famous and very important.

"A bucket of warm piss"? Come on MDN. Your not responsible for the language your readers post. But this kind of language has no place in journalism. I mostly agree with your take. But with just a little thought you could have gotten across the same message without being vulgar and classless.

Jul 26, 08 - 10:45 am Comment from: ken1w

Steve Jobs will have a long life. His diet is very healthy, compared to the average American's, and a few billion dollars buys a great deal of medical expertise.

I think Apple is being the master of PR as usual. Apple wants this concern and media attention over Steve Jobs's health as a smokescreen. They are planning something significant, which will be announced before the end of the year (or at MacWorld in January). But no one is paying attention, because the media is obsessed about his health. And once again, the competition will be caught flat-footed.

No one can manipulate the media like Steve Jobs and Apple.

MDN seems to have completely missed the real value of this NYT article:

Steve Jobs himself called the reporter and, speaking on background, confirmed that he does NOT have cancer.

This will have a POSITIVE impact on the stock price on Monday, because it (a) it confirms that SJ does not have cancer and (b) the news came from SJ himself.

It's just plain bad journalism, not to mention childish and unprofessional, for MDN to ignore the central importance of what is being reported by the NYT in this article.

@Falkirk,

Yeah, but I wouldn't have laughed if not for the vulgarity.

Good gravy, this is my third time typing this after two Safari crashes. I'd gladly give up the applications just to erase the burden of iPhone 2.0 off here.

Why does MDN repeatedly torpedo its own credibility by its blatant Apple cheerleading and use of childish language?

Does this kind of unprofessional behavior provide more hits to MDN and therefore more ad revenue?

Or does MDN simply not understand that credibility and objectivity are precious resources that, once squandered, are hard to earn back?

I'm not being rhetorical. I really would like to know why MDN behaves as unprofessionally as it does.

Jul 26, 08 - 10:55 am Comment from: Sir Gill Bates

"Because the conversation was off the record, I cannot disclose what Mr. Jobs told me. Suffice it to say that I didn’t hear anything that contradicted the reporting that John Markoff and I did this week. While his health problems amounted to a good deal more than “a common bug,” they weren’t life-threatening and he doesn’t have a recurrence of cancer. After he hung up the phone, it occurred to me that I had just been handed, by Mr. Jobs himself, the very information he was refusing to share with the shareholders who have entrusted him with their money.

You would think he’d want them to know before me. But apparently not."

If he told you the same thing that has already been publicly announced and you believe it, then what the frigging hell more does he need to do you stupid bastard?

I guess this pompous ass expects Steve and his doctors to consult with HIM daily. Maybe Steve should call a big press conference, get up on stage with all of his doctors and surgeons to explain every little detail, and then strip naked to show all of his scars.

This fool makes the comment that Steve Jobs is more important than every other company leader in the world, and therefore should be treated differently. Really?

What an absolute scumbag.

@ fastmemory

First, get your facts straight: Apple has a few tens of thousands -- not hundreds of thousands -- of employees, and that includes the folks in the retail store operation.

Second, I've been a stockholder for almost a decade. I expect Apple to disclose exactly what the SEC requires -- no more, no less. Any stockholder who expects differently, is living in LaLaLand.

Third, Steve Jobs' health IS A PRIVATE MATTER up to the point where it affects the company. Being gaunt or thin only affects what size jeans he wears (reminds me of a Seinfeld episode). At this point, there is absolutely no evidence that the health of Apple's CEO is having any impact whatsoever on the company's operations or profitability (unless you think Jobs is directly responsible -- as in, he miscoded the server apps -- for the MobileMe mess).

So, I suggest you and others get off your high horses -- there is no legal or ethical responsibility for Steve Jobs or Apple to do other than what they have done. Period.

fastmemory and any other retard monkey out there, (yeah, you heard me the first time!)

Who in the world says a celebrity can't have privacy... the nosy public! The lonely, bored housewife/husband who has nothing better to do then judge everyone besides themselves? Come on, Steve Jobs might have a responsibility to Apple, but his health concerns is his, his family's and the doctors he talks too! Period. I am so sick and tired of hearing about how a celebrity has no rights to privacy, why, because they act in movies, sing a popular song of the month, run a company that is doing well, again! Just remember, those "celebrities" put those pants on just like you and me, and to go in their backyard and dig through their trash just to find something to make a buck and then try to justify it by saying, "oh, well, they are in the public eye, they have no rights to privacy!" BS. Would you be so fourth coming if it was you? Be honest, remember, what ever you say, do is being recorded, broadcast and rebroadcast again and again.

Stop wondering what your neighbor is doing all the damn time! Unless SJ is walking around with blood stain shirts or caught "just sleeping" with little kids, you should stop looking into their lives and maybe be more proactive with yours!

Nothing to see here, folks, just a few retard monkeys throwing poop at each other! (Yup, you heard me again!)

First, "slime bucket" does have an ax to grind when it comes to Apple. Go read his previous columns on anything related to Apple. On second thought, don't bother; don't give him the hits.

Second, slime bucket has no clue whether Jobs did or did not tell the BOD of his surgery. We do know that the BOD has not found any of Jobs' recent health activities of material consequence to Apple. So on this point, I don't see any attempt to deceive any shareholders.

Third, the question asked at WWDC was "Is Jobs healthy?" and "Has Jobs' cancer returned?", and NOT "Tell us all of the health issues has Steve had over the last 6 months." Apple replied that Jobs was not healthy; he had had an infection, which is almost always just a "common bug"; at least when I have an infection, my doctor tells me it's nothing more serious than a common bug. I know there are some instances where an infection is much more serious than a common bug, but how does slime-bucket know that Steve had one of those, and not one of the type that I (and my children) always get?

Finally, how much advance notice do shareholders expect to get when Jobs is sick, and how serious does the sickness have to be? The first day he feels unwell and needs to stay home for the day? Or when he's determined with his doctors that he needs to stop working for a period of time (and how long does that period of time need to be: one day, one week, one month)? Or at what point in-between? It seems slime-bucket thinks, at a minimum, that Jobs must reveal all his health issues that require surgery, even if it is outpatient surgery and requires no more time off from Apple than having the flu, and less time than taking a vacation.

Sir Gill Bates: "If he told you the same thing that has already been publicly announced and you believe it, <expletives deleted>?"

This is flat out wrong. Neither Apple nor Steve Jobs has "publicly announced" anything about Steve's health that have been raised since WWDC back in June.

On July 21, Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer specifically declined to comment on the Apple earnings conference call, saying it was a private matter.

And even in SJ's call to Joe Nocera this past Thursday, SJ refused to be quoted on the record.

That is why, SJ's cancer-free health status, as confirmed (on background) by SJ himself in his call to the NYT, brings NEW facts into the public domain, which makes it NEWS, worthy of being reported by a newspaper. It is NOT a repetition of something "publicly announced" previously, because nothing was announced publicly since WWDC.

Jul 26, 08 - 11:11 am Comment from: fastmemory

@Ralph M:

Let me make it clearer. Apple has hundreds of thousands of employees and stockholders to answer to.

I am also a stockholder and as such I believe it IS my right to know about those things that effect my holdings. Let's just agree to disagree.

Jul 26, 08 - 11:17 am Comment from: TowerTone

"Death by bunga-bunga!"....

one more thing: I really liked the way Jobs pushed slime-bucket's buttons. Jobs provoked him to write still another article to the whole world (that includes the shareholders) confirming that he doesn't have cancer, all the while still maintaining his insistence that his health is a private matter by using the "off-the-record" play.

in slime-bucket's article, you can see that slime-bucket's emotions overcome any journalistic training he's ever had. jobs knew slime-bucket's ego wouldn't allow him to ignore his phone call, but that slime-bucket would demonstrably compromise his own make-it-all-public standards and join in apple's cone of secrecy (i.e., "off-the-record").

true genius. slime bucket was pwned.

@fastmemory: seriously answer me this:

how much advance notice do you expect to get when Jobs is sick, and how serious does the sickness have to be?
- The first day he feels unwell and needs to stay home for the day?
- Or when he's determined with his doctors that he needs to stop working for a period of time (and how long does that period of time need to be: one day, one week, one month)?
- Or at what point in-between?

More practically, is Apple responsible to inform you only when the cancer returns in such a way that it materially affects his ability to be CEO, or do they have to keep updating you daily that the doctors don't think (with 95% confidence) that he has cancer?

Ralph M: "I expect Apple to disclose exactly what the SEC requires -- no more, no less. Any stockholder who expects differently, is living in LaLaLand."

Really? Then why did AAPL take a nosedive at precisely 17:27 ET on July 21, when, during the Apple earnings conference call, CFO Peter Oppenheimer declined to comment on SJ's health?

Bring up a chart, listen to the Apple conference call, and verify it yourself.

Yes, Apple stock recovered the next day for other reasons (earnings outlook, stock market had a huge rally, etc), but there is no denying that there was a huge round of selling on July 21, at 17:27 ET at precisely the moment when Oppenheimer declined to comment.

"So, I suggest you and others get off your high horses -- there is no legal or ethical responsibility for Steve Jobs or Apple to do other than what they have done. Period."

This is just plain false and reflects a complete misunderstanding of the standards that shareholders apply in the real world.

In reality, institutional shareholders view SEC compliance as the MINIMUM standard for corporate disclosure. In the real world, if institutional investors (or retail investors, to a lesser extent) have concerns about the company, and management leaves those concerns unaddressed, then shareholders will act on their concerns by SELLING the stock.

Still not convinced? Here's a clue:

Ask yourself why SJ bothered to all the NYT reporter last Thursday at all?

The answer is that this concern had NOT yet (as of last Thursday, anyway) been put to bed in the minds of many shareholders. In the minds of Apple cheerleaders like MDN, yes, but not real shareholders with real money (think institutional investors).

So will SJ's telephone call to the NYT finally put this matter to bed? We'll see. My guess is that, barring any unforeseen events, AAPL will rise at least a few points on Monday, as news of SJ's confirmation of his lack of cancer spreads through the analyst community and institutional shareholders.

If such price rise on Monday does happen, then THAT will be confirmation that this issue has been put to bed. If that doesn't happen, then SJ's background phone call will have been deemed insufficient, and a more formal statement, either by SJ or by Apple, will be required.

We'll see how the market reacts to this news on Monday.

Falkrik and the rest:

MDN used "bucket of warm piss" for a reason:

John Nance Garner IV, nicknamed "Cactus Jack" (November 22, 1868 – November 7, 1967), was the forty-fourth Speaker of the United States House of Representatives (1931-33) and the thirty-second Vice President of the United States (1933-41).

Garner once described the office of the vice presidency as being "not worth a bucket of warm piss." [This quote was Bowdlerized for many decades to "not worth a bucket of warm spit" by the media. The incorrect version is still used on occasion by writers who say they never heard or read it any other way. Garner once described a writer who quoted it this way as a "pantywaist."]

MDN provided the link. Next time, use it before you comment on that which you do not understand.

mark: "How much advance notice do you expect to get when Jobs is sick, and how serious does the sickness have to be?"

The answer is simple: Change the issue from SJ's medical health, to one of CEO succession.

The fact is that even if SJ has no cancer, is back to normal weight, and is a picture of perfect health -- he could still be hit by a bus while crossing the street, or his Gulfstream could develop problems while in the air. Of course, we all hope that nothing like these events actually happens. But what if they do?

That's where having a credible plan for CEO succession comes into play. Joe Nocera is absolutely correct when he writes that SJ is no ordinary CEO. The Needham analyst is correct that AAPL would take at least a 25% hit if anything were to happen to SJ.

Apple doesn't even have to announce the details of any CEO succession plan. It simply has to confirm to the marketplace that it is aware of the risks and has a plan in place should any unfortunate event ever happen.

That is the right solution, and would most likely eliminate any lingering concern among shareholders.

Am I the only one, who thinks, that MDN takes are immature and bad for Apple?

I love all about Apple & Mac, but more and more I see why people in general start to hate this type of overweening cheerleading.

I know just what to do. I will use my iTele to teleport to Joe's place. Pick him up. Teleport to some unknown Island. Drop Joe off so he has time to find himeself. Teleport home.

Problem Solved!

Smokey: "MDN provided the link. Next time, use it before you comment on that which you do not understand."

The provenance of the phrase is NOT the point. It is completely irrelevant to the question of whether MDN should have used any such childish language at all.

And MDN's childish language itself is not the main point: MDN is ostensibly a news service -- it's Mac Daily NEWS, right? -- but its take was unprofessional, because it ignored the real NEWS that was reported in Joe Nocera's NYT article, as described earlier.

@MDN Take is Unprofessional:

I agree with you on one thing: that Apple wanted Nocera to write still another NEWS article about it. There's lots of reporters/ columnists that Apple/Jobs could've contacted but they chose Nocera, who dislikes Apple in general, and hates it for its secrecy (see his previous articles). Think about that.

By the way, Apple already secretly leaked the NEWS to John Markoff of the NYT, and to Arik Hessendahl of BW, both of which was dutifully reported. But even though the financial analysts could read the tea leaves and stopped making it an issue, the mainstream reporters were lacking in that ability, and needed still another article with an "off-the-record' on the record quote from the man himself.

But it's still not "publicly announced," so those lacking the ability to understand "off-the-record" are probably still waiting for an official Apple press release on the newswire. Guess AAPL stock will take more hits until such release appears!!!

Hey Mac, don't sugar coat it...tell it like it is!! If SJ & AAPL have complied with all SEC regs then that's it. Steve has been through hell both physically and mentally with this illness and if he doesn't want to share the gory details with the world, so be it. However, it would make everyone feel warm and fuzzy if he got on a really classy program like TMZ and showed the world his scar ala LBJ ...He could even hurl his beagle around by the ears:>) Apologies to the younger crowd who don't have a clue what I'm going on about!

JohnACryan: "If SJ & AAPL have complied with all SEC regs then that's it."

No. Legal compliance with minimum standards is NOT all there is to it. You're misunderstanding the way equity markets work in real life.

The undeniable reality is that shareholders will SELL the stock -- to the tune of 25% or more -- if anything happens to SJ.

You may be happy to live with that risk, but there are plenty of institutional investors who have a lot more money at stake than you, who can and do disagree.

Jul 26, 08 - 11:47 am Comment from: Sir Gill Bates

MDN Take is Unprofessional,

I agree, my wording "publicly announced" was totally incorrect. Sorry.

I guess I was thinking about all the things I have read that were announced by 'someone who knows a reliable source who is close to someone at Apple who heard that Steve told so-and-so ....'. Anyway, my bad.

As for your distaste for the actions of MDN:
"I really would like to know why MDN behaves as unprofessionally as it does."

Why, it's quite simple: Because they can.

This isn't The New York Times. This is a hardcore site for Mac/Apple aficionados. What exactly is professional behavior for blogs and websites? Do they all have to abide by what YOU consider acceptable?

Granted, crude and offensive language doesn't appeal to a lot of people, as it probably shouldn't. But that's the way of the world, like it or not. A lot of young people today can't seem to speak one sentence without the 'f' word.

There are many Mac related websites online. I would suggest you seek them out and look for ones that fit your personal sensibilities. Good luck.

YOU'RE RIGHT ON.

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.

You can bet they're manipulating stock prices. All of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut does it. That's how they try to pay for their $3m homes, private schools for the kids, and having dinner at fancy restaurants five nights a week.

YOU NAILED IT. KEEP GOING.

SOMETIMES THE TRUTH HURTS WHEN PEOPLE GET IT STRAIGHT.

KEEP TELLING IT LIKE IT IS.

WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE. THIS IS THE WAY THINGS WORK RIGHT NOW. THE INSIDER TRADING, ARTIFICIALLY AFFECTING THE STOCK MARKETS TO MAKE A BUCK, ETC., ETC.

It stinks, and I'm very glad that MDN published what it did.

LEARN TO LOVE THE TRUTH.

Jul 26, 08 - 11:53 am Comment from: DizzyD

Oh, and Nocera, the conference call happened *Monday* and not *Tuesday afternoon* as you repeatedly state in your column. I guess Steve-o is right about you getting your facts wrong most of the time!

"On July 21, Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer specifically declined to comment on the Apple earnings conference call, saying it was a private matter."

But Oppenheimer did comment on his health by what he said (Jobs doesn't want to leave and serves at the pleasure of the Board and they want him to stay) and by what he did not say. See Jim Goldman's article over at CNBC on this. In other words, if there was something about Jobs that materially affected Apple, he would've been obligated to say something, especially when directly questioned. By not saying anything, he answered with great subtlety, which many seem to have trouble comprehending. And I fear that some dolts will have trouble comprehending even this episode with Nocera, as again Apple (Jobs) answered by not answering (off the record).

"That's where having a credible plan for CEO succession comes into play."

First, name me one company that announced a CEO succession plan without any timetable whatsoever for when such a succession might take place. And if you can name one (I can), then name one that did it successfully. And by successfully, I mean that they did not lose a bunch of talent (those passed over) in the meantime.

Second, do you really gain anything from absolutely knowing that it will be Tim Cook, COO (barring that he got hit by a bus) that you didn't already know from him having done it previously? Would it make you feel any better if it wasn't Tim Cook but Jonathan Ive or Tony Fadell? Really, what difference would it make? It's going to be one of the Senior Vice Presidents.

Finally, if Apple was to announce a succession plan NOW, given that so many people seem lacking in sensitivity, most would think that something was truly wrong. AAPL would tank, and Apple would spend the next few months trotting out health records to show that the succession plan was not directly related to any health issue. Which of course they wouldn't do, so this would go on ad nauseum, and we'd have to read more slime from slime bucket.

Jul 26, 08 - 11:56 am Comment from: DizzyD

Looks like Nocera went back and updated his column to reflect the Monday conference call vs. Tuesday as he originally stated.

To add to my previous post, when Jobs was questioned about what would happen if he could no longer serve as CEO, he said that there is an excellent and very capable executive team at Apple. (I think this was on a CNBC interview, possibly also with Jim Goldman.)

For those who are interpretation-challenged: he said "MY REPLACEMENT IS ONE OF MY EXCELLENT AND VERY CAPABLE EXECUTIVES ON THE EXECUTIVE TEAM."

The NYT is a total rag and a joke to anyone with an education anyway. Anybody that reads that joke of a newspaper deserves to get inaccurate news and opinions.

To paraphrase MDN, there's quite a pissing match going on here. But it looks like amid the passion, truth is the loser.

I've said this before, but I hope some of you might listen this time:

1. As stated publicly by no less than Steve Jobs, his cancer has abated. He is dealing with issues related to his bout with cancer, such as his loss of weight. End of story.

2. Steve Jobs may be a celebrity and public figure, but his health is not. A person's private life is just that - private. It is NOT a matter of public record, nor is there any legal mandate for you, or Steve Jobs to disclose anything about your or his personal health. If you don't agree, I suggest that you read up on the federal Health Insurance Privacy and Portability Act (HIPAA). By law, your health and medical information is considered private. This also applies to Steve Jobs.

3. On the matter of whether Steve Jobs' health is considered a material event to stockholders: no. You might think it is, but it's not. So long as Steve Jobs can continue to fulfill the duties of his job at Apple, and so long as the Board of Directors concur, any matters of his health are a private matter. If however Steve Jobs' performance was in violation of the terms of his employment, then this would be a material event.

Ask yourself this: if you came down with the flu, would that be grounds for termination of your job? If you are a female and become pregnant, should you be fired from you job? Absolutely not. So long as Steve Jobs can function effectively at his job, cancer, or any other illness, does not qualify as a material event, regardless of any hype or hysteria surrounding this issue. Peter Oppenheimer was not understating things when he said that Steve Jobs' health is a private matter. He would never have said something like this publicly without a careful set of instructions from internal and outside legal counsel. The public might not like that answer, but it is correct, legally, ethically and personally. Apple might be a public company, but Steve Jobs' personal health is a private matter. Deal with it.

I am appalled that reporters, bloggers and others (including many of you) have not resorted to the facts. Had any of them consulted with lawyers on what is considered a material event, or physicians with deep knowledge of the type of cancer suffered by Steve Jobs, they would have learned about its complexities, side effects, prognosis, and what under any laws would need to be disclosed. Lost amid all the rancor is the truth. For Steve Jobs, this entire affair must be deeply wounding and humiliating, something completely overlooked by the public and the media. It is one of the more disgraceful events that I have seen in quite some time.

You may like Steve Jobs, or not. But a person's right to privacy is not fair game, regardless of their position or celebrity. If you disagree, imagine for a moment what it would be like to be Steve Jobs. Put aside the celebrity, wealth and power, and focus instead on the ugly attacks, rumors and innuendoes that he and his family have had to suffer in the past few months. I think you might be as guarded and as shown with the purported transcript of his call with NYT reporter Joe Nocera, angry. Personally, I think Nocera deserved any tongue lashing that he may have gotten.

For further details and some decent reporting on the issue, see:

http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/07/23/steve-jobs-health-whats-going-on/

http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/07/26/steve-jobs-talks-to-the-times-about-his-health/

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/technology/23apple.html

@ Calm down everybody

Thank you.

To everybody who disagrees or fails to understand: I suggest you sell your Apple stock. No matter what you may believe you are entitled to as a stockholder, HIPAA is the law. If you can't deal with the fact that Steve Jobs doesn't give a crap about what you think, or about the daily fluctuations in Apple's stock price, then I suggest you invest elsewhere.

Jul 26, 08 - 01:02 pm Comment from: fastmemory

Not to add fuel to the fire, as I'm frankly ready to move on, but there is absolutely no guarantee of privacy as written in the US Constitution. There is case law on the subject, which is debatable.

If you want to get on a high horse about it fine; in many cases I might even agree. But no one has a absolute to privacy. If you have a problem with that, then I suggest you take it up with the Founding Fathers.

Jul 26, 08 - 01:09 pm Comment from: Andy

I think the most bizarre issue with this already stupid article is the supposed call from Steve himself. Why would Steve phone some reporter and call him a 'slime bucket' (even if he is one) - behavior like that seems remarkably un-Steve like, certainly when dealing with people outwith Apple.

And why would Steve tell him intimate details of his medical history and forbid him from telling anyone else?

The whole call seems like a child-ish fantasy - 'I know something you don't know hahah!'.

Therefore, I take the article for what it is, an attempt to keep Apple's price down. It's irrelevant.

Some people do not understand the HIPAA regulations, their purpose and their intent: To protect our right to the privacy of our health records and history. Mr. Nocera has no right to demand such information from another.

What happened today Joe ... no ambulances to chase ? To say that Joe is a candidate for the National Enquirer gives the National Enquirer a bad name. Where were you when some of the leading banks in this country were committing financial rape on a grand scale ? Wy don't you redirect your efforts towards something useful ?

One last point about privacy: you are correct that as written, there is no broad brush guarantee of privacy to U.S. citizens. However, there are federal laws in place, as well as case law from the U.S. Supreme Court (and lesser court decisions) that guarantee privacy of U.S. citizens for specific applications. Matters of attorney-client privilege, doctor-patient privacy, the mandate to require a search warrant before police can enter premises, and the right of each of us to refuse entry to others (unless it is the police with a lawfully obtained search warrant, as well as Ed McMahon and the Publisher's Clearing House Prize Patrol) are all well established.

So too, is the matter of your personal health information. You may wish to read this at least: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIPAA

And as someone else above so eloquently stated, there is no mandate for you to disclose matters that you consider to be private. Do I need to publish or announce my social security number? Or all my passwords? Or tell you what medical conditions that I may or may not have? No.

So, while blanket privacy is not guaranteed under the law, quite a few islands of privacy are indeed protected. And one of the benefits of living in the United States is that you are under no MANDATE or OBLIGATION to DISCLOSE information that you deem to be personal or private, perhaps unless you are under oath.

Last I checked, Steve Jobs was not under oath to disclose matters of his personal life or health. Perhaps you would like to convene an inquisition? ("...are you now, or have you ever been diagnosed with cancer...?") If you feel that way, perhaps cancer should be considered a federal offense.

Jul 26, 08 - 01:27 pm Comment from: Cubert

@falkirk and others,
Read the link MDN provides to their "bucket of piss" comment and you will see that this is a historical reference that your children likely learn about in school.

So much for childish or crude, huh?

Jul 26, 08 - 01:33 pm Comment from: fastmemory

As I said, there is no guarantee of privacy under the US Constitution. If there are activist courts that decide otherwise, in certain, specific, or ASSUMED circumstances, so be it. What I originally said stands.

Both Calm down everyone! and Ralph M refer to HIPPA, which (for those readers, especially foreign ones, who may not know) is the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, passed by the United States Congress in 1996 and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton.

But what both Calm down everyone! and Ralph M fail to understand is that HIPAA simply does not apply in this discussion.

HIPAA does not create an absolute or comprehensive right to medical privacy. Rather, that 1996 law authorized the US Department of Health and Human Services to impose a Privacy Rule through administrative regulations, if Congress failed to pass privacy legislation within three years of HIPAA's taking effect.

And Congress failed, in fact, to pass such legislation within three years, and therefore HHS issued its Privacy Rule through its administrative regulations published in March 2002 (see 45 CFR Part 160 and Part 164, Subparts A and E).

What exactly is the Privacy Rule? It forbids disclosure of medical information by "covered entities" who (a) acquire medical information about individuals and (b) want to transmit it electronically. (That last phrase is quite significant to policy wonks -- this is regulatory data protection, as opposed to establishing a right to privacy.)

Who are these "covered entities"? The Privacy Rule applies to "health plans, health care clearinghouses, and to any health care provider who transmits health information in electronic form in connection with transactions for which the Secretary of HHS has adopted standards under HIPAA." (Source: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacysummary.pdf.)

So under HIPAA, it would be violation of the Privacy Rule if one of SJ's doctors or laboratory technician or his insurance carrier disclosed SJ's medical information, without SJ's consent.

So what does HIPAA have to do with Apple's fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders? Answer: Nothing at all!

If Apple made a disclosure about its CEO's health, then it would be considered a voluntary disclosure by Apple and/or its CEO and such disclosure would not be prohibited by HIPAA -- HIPAA wouldn't apply at all to information that is in the public domain, as opposed to being private medical information.

So please stop citing HIPAA as imposing any kind of limitation, whether legal, moral, or ethical, on shareholders. It does not. Nor does HIPPA create any fundamental right to privacy. It does not.

Rather, HIPAA imposes data protection restrictions on medical providers, health insurance carriers, and the like who come into possession of private medical information in the performance of their duties, and want to transfer that data electronically either within their own company or to other entities.

This mini-HIPAA primer is brought to you, in part, by revulsion at the childishness and unprofessionalism of MDN's take. The answer to such coarse and obtuse speech is not to turn one's back or simply go away. The right answer is more speech, hopefully that is more respectful and informed, that can help bring the discussion back onto course.

Hey, fastmemory.

For you to continue posting on MDN, I need your social security number and full address right now. As you already said, there is no absolute right to privacy in the Constitution, so you must make it known to MDN now.

Jul 26, 08 - 01:45 pm Comment from: Sir Gill Bates

"The answer to such coarse and obtuse speech is not to turn one's back or simply go away. The right answer is more speech, hopefully that is more respectful and informed, that can help bring the discussion back onto course."

Sorry, but it ain't gonna happen. No way - no how.

newton*: "Some people do not understand the HIPAA regulations, their purpose and their intent: To protect our right to the privacy of our health records and history. Mr. Nocera has no right to demand such information from another."

Sorry, you missed the mark. While the last sentence is technically true, this is a complete straw man argument and entirely besides the point.

Not one single person has argued that Mr. Nocera (or any other reporter, or any shareholder) has a legal right to private medical information about SJ's health. That is an argument that exists in your mind only. No one else has made it.

The issue, rather, is whether (a) Apple's CEO is capable of performing his executive and board functions and fulfilling his fiduciary responsibilities to Apple's shareholders, and (b) if Apple's CEO is (or becomes) partially or fully incapacitated whether there is a credible CEO succession plan in place.

To the extent disclosure of (a) and (b) above is relevant, the controlling law would be the "material event" definition in securities legislation, not HIPAA.

That's why HIPAA is a red herring in this context -- no one is trying to violate HIPPA, and that law simply does not apply to reporters, shareholders, and non-medical personnel. So we should all refrain from talking about HIPAA in this context. Ok?

@MDN Take is Unprofessional:

As others have said, the NYT article doesn't say anything that hasn't already been said. Yes, it confirms prior articles (if we believe that he really received a phone call), but those prior articles originally published in the NYT and Business Week, if interpreted properly, needed no further confirmation.

Look, if MacRumors, AppleInsider, or even MDN had reported that a "source" said, then yes, I'd look for loads of confirmation. But past history has shown, at least in relation to Apple secrets, that when the WSJ or NYT reports an Apple "secret" in an article (not a blog entry) and makes it clear that it came from a source very close to Apple, then it has always been true. If not for blogs either unable to interpret or intentionally seeking to prolong it, this story would've been case closed as of Markoff's article.

Jul 26, 08 - 02:00 pm Comment from: shen

@MDN Take is Unprofessional

wow, you are 90% of the discussion. and you have yet to say anything that matters in the least (though i admit that i stopped reading you about halfway when it became obvious you are simply a legal troll who thinks that the rules matter more than reality) despite all those words.

does that scare you?

Jul 26, 08 - 02:01 pm Comment from: FloridaT

Sorry - MDN is right on this one - Nocera and others want to keep this story alive SOLEY to keep the stock depressed - and I suspect they have some incentive to do so.

Apple is a large company - well run and well managed - it is blessed with a large number of talented people - Steve Jobs among them - but none of them - Steve included - is so important they can't be replaced - and they will be when the time comes.

Nocera is a worse than a slime bucket - Steve was being too kind!