Is Steve Jobs' right to privacy more important than shareholders?

The debate about how much companies should disclose is an interesting one but in the case of Apple, it's a much simpler issue: Did Apple knowingly mislead investors when it announced that Jobs needed "relatively simple" treatment for a nutritional ailment, nine days before he announced a leave of absence that sent the stock plunging?

If so, then the right to privacy argument is irrelevant. If Apple wants to keep Jobs' health matters private, than it should just tell Wall Street that "Mr. Jobs wishes for his health issues to remain private and that's really all that we can say about that. Caveat emptor." There doesn't appear to be anything in securities law to prevent them from doing that. But there is plenty in securities law to prevent the company from saying things that just ain't so.

By issuing reassuring press releases, Apple may have gotten itself in hot water if it can somehow be demonstrated that the company was deliberately misleading investors by withholding information.

But I somehow doubt the SEC will be able to do that.