Ruthless -- perhaps criminal -- business tactics are the rule not the exception at Apple (AAPL) and Samsung.无情（甚至罪恶）的商业手段沦为常规操作者，苹果（Apple）和三星（Samsung）也不值得注意。Thats 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.这是上周末两篇取得社交媒体普遍发送文章的核心内容，其中一篇出自于《纽约时报》（New York Times），另外一篇出自于《名利场》杂志（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.据因一系列揭发内幕交易的报导而取得1988年普利策奖（Pulitzer）的詹姆斯o斯图尔特报导称之为，史蒂夫o乔布斯本应当杀在狱中。据两度取得波卡奖（Polk）、因报导药品临床试验获得2000年普利策奖提名的库尔特o艾肯沃德报导称之为，三星本不应在多年前就被勒令关门歇业。

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? Thats 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. Im 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乔布斯当今还活在世上，他否应该被关在监狱？这个话题在反垄断业界中引发了热议，因为人们最近找到，在硅谷享有盛名的苹果公司牵头创始人乔布斯是“避免输掉挖墙脚”阴谋的推动者......乔布斯“一贯违背反垄断法”，艾奥瓦大学（Iowa College of Law）法学院教授、反垄断专家哈伯特o霍温坎普(Herbert Hovenkamp)说道：“我被他或许心甘情愿去分担的风险大吃一惊了。”-- 《纽约时报》:史乔布斯挑战惯例，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 its 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 didnt 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 couldnt lie if their lives depended on it, and I represented Samsung and they couldnt tell the truth if their lives depended on it. -- Vanity Fair: The Great Smartphone War.据不少法庭证词和与三星合作的人士称之为，漠视竞争对手的专利对于这家韩国公司并不是什么不奇怪的事情。

而且，一旦被逃跑把柄，它就采行与苹果案件一样的策略，反诉、推迟、胜诉、推迟、裁决，等到告终不可避免之时，再行展开妥协。“无论专利权归属于谁，它们从没遇上过它们指出无法当作用的专利，”一位曾为三星代理案件的专利律师山姆o巴克斯特说。“我曾代表（瑞典电信公司）爱立信（Ericsson），如果事关他们的生计，他们就会骗子；而我代表三星时，如果事关他们的生计，他们认同会说实话。

”-- 《名利场》：智能手机大战Each piece is hatchet job that dances to the edge of libel. Eichenwald at least has done some fresh reporting. Stewarts story struck me as a rehash. Your mileage may vary.每篇报导都几近是在毁谤的刀尖上唱歌。艾肯沃德最少做到了一些一手的报导。而斯图尔特的文章在我看来就是炒冷饭。

不过，你的观点可能会不一样。

本文来源：九州体育-www.ecufuse.com