評論
打印
After a week filled with increasingly insistent legal advice, Jobs finally agreed to go on medical leave.
在法律顧問越來越強烈的建議下，一周后喬布斯最終決定休病假。
He made the announcement on January 14, 2009, in another open letter to the Apple staff.
他在2009年1月14日給蘋果員工的另一封公開信中宣布了這個消息。
At first he blamed the decision on the prying of bloggers and the press.
首先，他將這個決定歸咎于那些博客和媒體的窺探行為。
"Unfortunately, the curiosity over my personal health continues to be a distraction not only for me and my family, but everyone else at Apple," he said.
“很不幸，對我個人健康的好奇不僅持續干擾著我和我的家人，也干擾著蘋果的每一位員工。”他說。
But then he admitted that the remedy for his "hormone imbalance" was not as simple as he had claimed.
但是接下來他承認，對他“荷爾蒙失調”的治療并非如他之前宣稱的那么簡單。
"During the past week I have learned that my health-related issues are more complex than I originally thought."
“在過去幾周我得知，我的健康問題比我原來想象的要更加復雜。”
Tim Cook would again take over daily operations,
蒂姆·庫克將再次接手日常的運營工作，
but Jobs said that he would remain CEO, continue to be involved in major decisions, and be back by June.
但是喬布斯說他仍然擔任CEO，繼續參與重大決策，6月就會回來上班。
Jobs had been consulting with Bill Campbell and Art Levinson,
喬布斯一直在向比爾·坎貝爾和亞瑟·萊文森咨詢，
who were juggling the dual roles of being his personal health advisors and also the co-lead directors of the company.
他們既是他的個人健康顧問又是公司的聯合獨立董事。
But the rest of the board had not been as fully informed, and the shareholders had initially been misinformed.
但是董事會其他成員就沒有獲得同樣充分的信息，而且股東最初得到的信息是錯誤的。
That raised some legal issues, and the SEC opened an investigation into whether the company had withheld "material information" from shareholders.
這引起了一些法律問題，證券交易委員會立案調查蘋果公司是否向股東隱瞞了“重大信息”。
It would constitute security fraud, a felony,
這將構成證券欺詐，是一項重罪，
if the company had allowed the dissemination of false information or withheld true information that was relevant to the company's financial prospects.
如果公司允許錯誤信息傳播或隱瞞了跟公司的財務前景相關的真實信息的話。
Because Jobs and his magic were so closely identified with Apple's comeback, his health seemed to meet this standard.
由于輿論認為喬布斯和他的魔力跟蘋果的再度崛起緊密相關，他的健康問題似乎就符合了“重大信息”的標準。
But it was a murky area of the law; the privacy rights of the CEO had to be weighed.
但這是法律的灰色地帶，必須要把CEO的隱私杈考慮在內。
This balance was particularly difficult in the case of Jobs, who both valued his privacy and embodied his company more than most CEOs.
在喬布斯這個案例中，要實現信息公開與保護隱私的平衡尤為困難，因為他既重視自己的隱私，又比大多數CEO都賦予了公司更多的個人風格。
He did not make the task easier.
他還令這個任務難上加難。
He became very emotional, both ranting and crying at times, when railing against anyone who suggested that he should be less secretive.
他變得非常情緒化，痛罵起任何建議他不應該那么神秘的人，常常又是咆哮又是流淚。
