|
Ruthless -- perhaps criminal -- business tactics are the rule not the exception at Apple (AAPL) and Samsung. 无情（甚至罪恶）的商业手段成为常规操作，苹果（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. 这是上周末两篇获得社交媒体广泛转发文章的核心内容，其中一篇出自《纽约时报》（New York Times），另外一篇出自《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. 据因一系列揭露内幕交易的报道而获得1988年普利策奖（Pulitzer）的詹姆斯o斯图尔特报道称，史蒂夫o乔布斯本应该死在狱中。据两度获得波卡奖（Polk）、因报道药品临床试验获2000年普利策奖提名的库尔特o艾肯沃德报道称，三星本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? 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. | 
