评论
打印
本周一，《韩国时报》（Korea Times）报道称，苹果（Apple）和三星（Samsung）正在进行“工作级别的讨论”，旨在撤销所有诉讼案，像苹果和谷歌（Google）三天前那样冰释前嫌。这篇报道援引专利博客FOSS Patent的弗洛里安o穆勒称，苹果“正寻求以体面的方式终止史蒂夫o乔布斯（对安卓系统）发起的‘热核战争’”。
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《韩国时报》口径大变。当天的报道称，三星同意进行和解谈判，但苹果不愿和解。报道起初的标题是“苹果不愿与三星和解”，后来标题更是被改为“苹果拒绝与三星达成协议”。
Only trouble is, there never was a deal.
但问题在于，两家公司之间根本不存在任何协议。
Nor were there any settlement talks, as the two companies' joint submission to U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh court makes clear.
此外，苹果和三星联合提交给美国地方法官露西o科赫的资料表明，双方根本没有进行任何和解谈判。
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.
从《韩国时报》援引三星律师的话来看，貌似错误全在苹果。但是这篇报道有意避开了苹果的申诉材料，从而漏掉了最精彩的部分。报道大部分援引自三星首席律师约翰o奎恩，后者当时正向Law360谈论法院判决三星需赔偿苹果1.2亿美元之事。
o "They're not going to see any of this money. This won't stand."
o “他们一分钱也别想拿到。这根本站不住脚。”
o "Apple hasn't collected a penny—or succeeded in taking any products off the market."
o “苹果现在还没拿到一分钱，也没有迫使我们任何一款产品下架。”
o "This is Apple's Vietnam, and people are sick of it."
o “苹果不过是在转移视线，人们早就不厌其烦。”
o "It's kind of hard to talk settlement with a jihadist."
o “就像跟极端主义分子一样，没有什么可谈的。”
That, Apple's lawyers dryly noted, "hardly presages a fruitful return to mediation."
最后，苹果律师无奈地称，“很难想像谈判能有什么实质性的成果。”
