評論
打印
本周一，《韓國時報》（Korea Times）報道稱，蘋果（Apple）和三星（Samsung）正在進行“工作級別的討論”，旨在撤銷所有訴訟案，像蘋果和谷歌（Google）三天前那樣冰釋前嫌。這篇報道援引專利博客FOSS Patent的弗洛里安o穆勒稱，蘋果“正尋求以體面的方式終止史蒂夫o喬布斯（對安卓系統）發起的‘熱核戰爭’”。
On Tuesday, the Korea Times took it all back. Samsung was agreeable to settlement talks, itreported, but not Apple. "Apple resists settlement with Samsung" was the headline on an early version of the story. The final version went further: "Apple rejects deal with Samsung."
然而，本周二《韓國時報》口徑大變。當天的報道稱，三星同意進行和解談判，但蘋果不愿和解。報道起初的標題是“蘋果不愿與三星和解”，后來標題更是被改為“蘋果拒絕與三星達成協議”。
Only trouble is, there never was a deal.
但問題在于，兩家公司之間根本不存在任何協議。
Nor were there any settlement talks, as the two companies' joint submission to U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh court makes clear.
此外，蘋果和三星聯合提交給美國地方法官露西o科赫的資料表明，雙方根本沒有進行任何和解談判。
According to the Samsung lawyer quoted by the Korea Times, Apple was entirely to blame. But by skipping over Apple's half of the submission, the paper missed the juiciest parts, most of them quoting Samsung's lead attorney, John Quinn, talking to Law360 about the $120 million damages a jury had just awarded Apple.
從《韓國時報》援引三星律師的話來看，貌似錯誤全在蘋果。但是這篇報道有意避開了蘋果的申訴材料，從而漏掉了最精彩的部分。報道大部分援引自三星首席律師約翰o奎恩，后者當時正向Law360談論法院判決三星需賠償蘋果1.2億美元之事。
o "They're not going to see any of this money. This won't stand."
o “他們一分錢也別想拿到。這根本站不住腳。”
o "Apple hasn't collected a penny—or succeeded in taking any products off the market."
o “蘋果現在還沒拿到一分錢，也沒有迫使我們任何一款產品下架。”
o "This is Apple's Vietnam, and people are sick of it."
o “蘋果不過是在轉移視線，人們早就不厭其煩。”
o "It's kind of hard to talk settlement with a jihadist."
o “就像跟極端主義分子一樣，沒有什么可談的。”
That, Apple's lawyers dryly noted, "hardly presages a fruitful return to mediation."
最后，蘋果律師無奈地稱，“很難想像談判能有什么實質性的成果。”
