OPINION > AROUND THE WATER COOLER

THIS WEEK'S QUESTION:

"Should the seriousness of Steve Jobs' ailment have been disclosed?"

Yes: 7

No: 4

■ Bert Berson: "Yes. That information was 'material' and Apple violated SEC rules."

■ Chris Bryant: "Enough to satisfy the law. It is always difficult to know how much to disclose. Too much then people get upset that you overemphasized the problem. Too little they get upset you minimized the problem."

■ David Cohen: "Yes. Apple owes transparency to shareholders and employees."

■ Dennis Kennedy: "No! It would have caused Apples' stock to drop significantly, unnecessarily. Additionally, he has a right to privacy concerning his medical issues."

■ Linda McNulty: "No, It's his choice and right to privacy, besides Tim Cook has done a fine 'job' of replacing 'Jobs.'"

■ Henry Miller: "No. His medical issues are private and should only be discussed with his permission. Apple's success is the result of many people and the culture Jobs instilled in them. If he left tomorrow, the company would carry on and prosper because of his influence, not his persona."

■ Lisa Pampuch: "No. The details of his medical condition are private. Apple announced that Jobs was on medical leave, which appears to be all that SEC rules require. Let's remember that the future isn't guaranteed for any of us; anyone - visionary corporate CEOs or small-town newspaper columnists - can be run over by a bus or struck by lightning."

■ John Quick: "There is a fine line between his privacy and the rights of the stockholders and buying public to know about things that influence the viability of his company. I would tend to err on the side of transparency where such a large interest is affected. This is the price he must pay for the fame and wealth he has gained from his company."

■ Emily Shem-Tov: "Yes, to be transparent and true to the culture the company has created and its fans expect, they should disclose the information and let everyone get back to talking about their products."

■ Steve Staloch: "Yes. Although his temporarily stepping down for health reasons was disclosed as required, SEC rules don't go far enough in disclosing the severity of such infirmities when they involve key officers of a publicly traded company."

■ Karen Anderson: "Yes. Unfortunately, Jobs is not a mere mortal, normally deserving of privacy. The fate of stockholders' net worth is in his hands."

Vote in This week's web poll

POST A COMMENT

If you are under 13 years of age you may read this message board, but you may not participate. Here are the full legal terms you agree to by using this comment form.