亚色在线观看_亚洲人成a片高清在线观看不卡_亚洲中文无码亚洲人成频_免费在线黄片,69精品视频九九精品视频,美女大黄三级,人人干人人g,全新av网站每日更新播放,亚洲三及片,wwww无码视频,亚洲中文字幕无码一区在线

????無情（甚至罪惡）的商業(yè)手段成為常規(guī)操作，蘋果（Apple）和三星（Samsung）也不例外,。

????這是上周末兩篇獲得社交媒體廣泛轉(zhuǎn)發(fā)文章的核心內(nèi)容,，其中一篇出自《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》（New York Times），另外一篇出自《名利場》雜志（Vanity Fair）,。

????據(jù)因一系列揭露內(nèi)幕交易的報(bào)道而獲得1988年普利策獎(jiǎng)（Pulitzer）的詹姆斯?斯圖爾特報(bào)道稱,，史蒂夫?喬布斯本應(yīng)該死在獄中。據(jù)兩度獲得波卡獎(jiǎng)（Polk）,、因報(bào)道藥品臨床試驗(yàn)獲2000年普利策獎(jiǎng)提名的庫爾特?艾肯沃德報(bào)道稱,，三星本應(yīng)在多年前就被勒令關(guān)門歇業(yè)。

????下面吊一吊大家的胃口：

????如果史蒂夫?喬布斯當(dāng)今還活在世上,，他是否應(yīng)當(dāng)被關(guān)進(jìn)監(jiān)獄,？這個(gè)話題在反壟斷業(yè)界中引起了熱議，因?yàn)槿藗冏罱l(fā)現(xiàn)，在硅谷享有盛名的蘋果公司聯(lián)合創(chuàng)始人喬布斯是“防止對手挖墻腳”陰謀的推手......喬布斯“一貫違反反壟斷法”,，艾奧瓦大學(xué)（Iowa College of Law）法學(xué)院教授,、反壟斷專家哈伯特?霍溫坎普(Herbert Hovenkamp)說：“我被他似乎心甘情愿去承擔(dān)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)驚呆了?！?- 《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》: 史喬布斯挑戰(zhàn)慣例,，甚至法律。

????據(jù)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于這家韓國公司并不是什么不尋常的事情,。而且，一旦被抓住把柄,，它就采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(shí),，再進(jìn)行和解?！盁o論專利權(quán)屬于誰,，它們從來沒遇到過它們認(rèn)為不能拿來用的專利，”一位曾為三星代理案件的專利律師山姆?巴克斯特說,?！拔以恚ㄈ鸬潆娦殴荆哿⑿牛‥ricsson），如果事關(guān)他們的生計(jì),，他們就不會(huì)撒謊,；而我代表三星時(shí)，如果事關(guān)他們的生計(jì),，他們肯定不會(huì)說實(shí)話,。”-- 《名利場》：智能手機(jī)大戰(zhàn)

????每篇報(bào)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(bào)道,。而斯圖爾特的文章在我看來就是炒冷飯。不過,，你的觀點(diǎn)可能會(huì)不一樣,。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

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

????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.

????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.

????A pair of appetizers:

????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.

????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.

????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.