Subscribe
Harvard Law School Professor Jonathan Zittrain and a big time Apple critic wrote a scatting scathing open ed piece in Financial Times criticizing Apple for not being open. However when it came to his matters he was anything but open.
His Harvard office (The Berkman Institute) is funded to that tune of $500,000 by Google. He charges $25,000 for a speaking engagements, like the one at Stanford University, he spent $4,647.56 on cucumber and chutney sandwiches for the attendees (paid for by Microsoft) as they sat there and listened to him criticize.
The problem is that professor and Harvard failed to disclose that they are taking money from Apple’s competitor to criticize Apple. He and Harvard used Harvard’s influential brand to make his criticism appear to be based on fact and evidence when in was simply done for money.
When reporters made several attempts to clarify the matter by email and by phone with Zittrain he continued to decline comment, citing his health and other “long-arranged” commitments. He finally agreed to a phone interview only to cancel it. When the reporter caught up with him he said that he could not “engage on this,” due to major surgery he had in May 2010.
This is similar to the ethics quandary in 2008, where Harvard Medical School professors promoted drugs manufactured by companies such as Pfizer and Merck, from whom they had been paid as consultants. Full Story
Full Disclosure: I own Apple shares at the time of the writing.
Channels: ethics, harvard, zittrain
This guy is pure scum, he has now been black balled.
Comment by Ted — July 7, 2010 @ 1:22 PM
How is his center not open? Its sponsors and funding policies are all listed at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/about/support, and have been for years, http://twitter.com/brookeOB1/status/17891806092. So how have they “failed to disclose”? The original article doesn’t even say this, but it tries to imply it. Smells like a hit job to me.
Comment by Anonymous — July 7, 2010 @ 3:10 PM
I just want to know what a "scatting open ed piece" is.
Regardless, you are being rather dishonest when you describe the cost of the meals. The number cited by you was, according to the article, "meal tab for Zittrain’s seminar ", which lasted 3.5 weeks. Assuming only lunch, and only 10 days (both of which are likely to be gross understatements), that comes to $500/meal. Unless there were only a couple of attendees (unlikely, given this little reporterette attended), then that doesn't seem so far out of bounds.
Besides, the seminar was about legal issues on the internet. Had jack all to do with Apple.
You just go right ahead and keep sniffing those Jobs farts and calling it perfume.
Comment by Jaques Mehoff — July 8, 2010 @ 7:32 PM
This is totally and utterly a hit job. Jonathan Zittrain is one of the most ethical people I know., and to say that he works for Google because Berkman gets some grants from them (which is clearly disclosed) is really really flimsy reporting. Don't smear this guy, he's one of the good guys.
Comment by David Sifry — July 9, 2010 @ 6:04 PM
Dayan, you need to learn how to write in complete sentences that make sense. Your stories are more hit jobs than actual journalistic pieces. It's really unbearable to read this stuff.
And what the hell is a "scatting open ed piece?"
Comment by Traber — July 9, 2010 @ 10:19 PM
Hi Traber, first and foremost I am not a journalist – I am an engineer. I merely try to present the information from my point of view. This blog is about the truth and real information not style. "Scatting" happened to be misspelled it has been corrected – just like you got my name wrong when it is right in front of you. These are small things focus on the message.
Comment by Daya Baran — July 9, 2010 @ 10:37 PM