Interesting. If it had been John Doe's yacht (if that thing really can be described as "a yacht"), then probably it would never have been worthy of reporting as a news item, except perhaps in some obscure trade/debtors' journal as an unfortunately unfulfilled contract (insufficient consideration) arising from the death of a party to the contract before it was completed. A potential claim on the deceased's estate.
People live, then eventually die. Life goes on without them, People who die before their allotted time may sometimes leave a legacy of untidy loose ends in their life - e.g intestate - for others to tidy up, if it is necessary to do so.
If this contract is the only loose end from his life, then Jobs arguably did a remarkably tidy job of arranging for his expected early exit. He wouldn't have wanted his death to have left any problems for his family, and he had the financial resources to ensure that. A loose end like the boat would be just a thing, a millionaire's fancy, perhaps a folly, and it does not bring Jobs back. Probably the best approach would be to sell the thing and give the boatbuilder his $3 million (or whatever he is owed) out of the proceeds.
So what does it matter?
I would suggest not much at all, except perhaps as a kind of example and an opportunity for us to reflect upon - spend some of our cognitive surplus - on the meaning of schadenfreude in the context of the Self.
Topic: Steve Jobs' Yacht Impounded? (Read 4,038 times)
