媒體戲稱 喬布斯是罪犯 三星是騙子

Ruthless -- perhaps criminal -- business tactics are the rule not the exception at Apple (AAPL) and Samsung.

無情（甚至罪惡）的商業手段成爲常規操作，蘋果（Apple）和三星（Samsung）也不例外。

That's the take-home message from a pair of stories being widely re-tweeted this weekend, one from the New York Times, the other from Vanity Fair.

這是上週末兩篇獲得社交媒體廣泛轉發文章的核心內容，其中一篇出自《紐約時報》（New York Times），另外一篇出自《名利場》雜誌（Vanity Fair）。

According to James Stewart, who won a Pulitzer in 1988 for a series about insider trading, Steve Jobs ought to have died in jail. According to Kurt Eichenwald, two-time Polk winner and 2000 Pulitzer finalist for an investigation of medical clinical trials, Samsung should have been shut down years ago.

據因一系列揭露內幕交易的報道而獲得1988年普利策獎（Pulitzer）的詹姆斯o斯圖爾特報道稱，史蒂夫o喬布斯本應該死在獄中。據兩度獲得波卡獎（Polk）、因報道藥品臨牀試驗獲2000年普利策獎提名的庫爾特o艾肯沃德報道稱，三星本應在多年前就被勒令關門歇業。

A pair of appetizers:

下面吊一吊大家的胃口：

If Steve Jobs were alive today, should he be in jail? That's the provocative question being debated in antitrust circles in the wake of revelations that Mr. Jobs, the co-founder of Apple, who is deeply revered in Silicon Valley, was the driving force in a conspiracy to prevent competitors from poaching employees... Mr. Jobs "was a walking antitrust violation," said Herbert Hovenkamp, a professor at the University of Iowa College of Law and an expert in antitrust law. "I'm simply astounded by the risks he seemed willing to take." -- New York Times: Steve Jobs Defied Convention, and Perhaps the Law.

如果史蒂夫o喬布斯當今還活在世上，他是否應當被關進監獄？這個話題在反壟斷業界中引起了熱議，因爲人們最近發現，在硅谷享有盛名的蘋果公司聯合創始人喬布斯是“防止對手挖牆腳”陰謀的推手......喬布斯“一貫違反反壟斷法”，艾奧瓦大學（Iowa College of Law）法學院教授、反壟斷專家哈伯特o霍溫坎普(Herbert Hovenkamp)說：“我被他似乎心甘情願去承擔的風險驚呆了。”-- 《紐約時報》:史喬布斯挑戰慣例，甚至法律。

According to various court records and people who have worked with Samsung, ignoring competitors' patents is not uncommon for the Korean company. And once it's caught it launches into the same sort of tactics used in the Apple case: countersue, delay, lose, delay, appeal, and then, when defeat is approaching, settle. "They never met a patent they didn't think they might like to use, no matter who it belongs to," says Sam Baxter, a patent lawyer who once handled a case for Samsung. "I represented [the Swedish telecommunications company] Ericsson, and they couldn't lie if their lives depended on it, and I represented Samsung and they couldn't tell the truth if their lives depended on it." -- Vanity Fair: The Great Smartphone War.

據不少法庭證詞和與三星合作的人士稱，無視競爭對手的專利對於這家韓國公司並不是什麼不尋常的事情。而且，一旦被抓住把柄，它就採取與蘋果案件一樣的策略，反訴、拖延、敗訴、拖延、上訴，等到失敗不可避免之時，再進行和解。“無論專利權屬於誰，它們從來沒遇到過它們認爲不能拿來用的專利，”一位曾爲三星代理案件的專利律師山姆o巴克斯特說。“我曾代表（瑞典電信公司）愛立信（Ericsson），如果事關他們的生計，他們就不會撒謊；而我代表三星時，如果事關他們的生計，他們肯定不會說實話。”-- 《名利場》：智能手機大戰

Each piece is hatchet job that dances to the edge of libel. Eichenwald at least has done some fresh reporting. Stewart's story struck me as a rehash. Your mileage may vary.

每篇報道都近乎是在誹謗的刀尖上跳舞。艾肯沃德至少做了一些一手的報道。而斯圖爾特的文章在我看來就是炒冷飯。不過，你的觀點可能會不一樣。