跨文化英语阅读教程Unit 1课后翻译

Unit 1 The Texts: Piracy in the Twenty-First Century

参考译文：

二十一世纪的盗版现象

课文一

现代社会依赖于技术创新，而技术创新须依靠知识产权来保障。越来越多的国家遵守国际条约，实行知识产权保护。但这方面做得还远远不够。我们来回顾一下过去，看看缺乏知识产权保护会导致什么样的后果，从而吸取教训。

Reading B

As many Western companies once discovered to their cost, investing in Southeast Asia before the advent of secure intellectual property rights was an expensive proposition. To enter these markets, Western companies had to disclose to authorities details not only of their products, but also of the processes whereby their products were created. The result, all too often, was rapid and blatant copying of goods which were not protected against copyright abuse of this kind.

参考译文：

许多西方公司付出了惨痛的代价才发现，知识产权保障机制还未健全时，在东南亚投资无异于将钱付诸东流。要进入这些市场，西方公司不仅必须向相关当局说明他们的产品，而且还要说明他们产品的制作过程。而结果经常是本该受到知识产权保护的产品很快被无耻地

抄袭。

Reading C

There are numerous examples of such copyright piracy from the past. The American chemical giant Du Pont, for example, introduced into one Asian country its famous Londax herbicide, which kills weeds in rice fields. The company had invested millions of dollars in the research and development of this product, and plough edanother US$25 million into opening a local production plant. Less than one year afterwards, however, very cheap bottles of a fake Londax were openly on sale. The only difference between the fake and real items — other than the price —was that the fake was called Rondex and came in a blue rather than green bottle. However, as it was so much cheaper than the ori ginal, it effectively destroyed Du Pont’s investment. It also made the company much less willing to invest in R&D (research and development) of new chemicals. The “recipe” for Londax should have been treated as the intellectual property of Du Pont. For another company to make unauthorized use of it was stealing, just as surely as if they had stolen Du Pont’s machines or any other physical property.

参考译文：

盗用知识产权的例子不胜枚举。例如，美国化学制品巨头杜邦向

一亚洲国家引进了一种名叫Londax的著名除草剂，用来除掉稻田里的杂草。该公司在该产品的研发上投资了数百万美元，而且又投入了2500万美元在当地开设了一家生产厂家。然而，不到一年以后，一

瓶瓶非常廉价的冒牌Londax公然上市了。冒牌产品和正宗产品除了价格外的唯一区别是冒牌产品的名称是Rondex，用的是蓝色瓶而不

是正宗产品用的绿色瓶。但是，由于冒牌产品的价格比正宗产品的价格低廉许多，它成功毁掉了杜邦公司的投资。同时它也使得该公司不再愿意投资于新化学制品的研发。生产Londax的配方本应该被当作是杜邦公司的知识产权。其他非法使用该配方的公司是犯了偷盗行为，就像盗取了杜邦公司的机器或者该公司的其他财产一样。

Reading D

It was not only products that were vulnerable — protecting a brand name in the Asian market was once nearly impossible. Even Kellogg’s, the manufacturers of the original Kellogg’s Corn Flakes, found themselves competing with a product superficially similar to their own: KongalCornstrips, which even came in a near-identical box. Unfortunately, as in the Du Pont case, Kellogg’s chances of successfully prosecuting the copyists were virtually zero, because local law did not adequately recognize the concept of copyright protection.

参考译文：

不光是产品，在亚洲市场上保护一个品牌也曾经是几乎不可能的事。就连Kellogg’s玉米片的生产商Kellogg’s公司也发现自己的产品被山寨：Kongal牌玉米条，连包装也几乎一模一样。不幸的是，和杜邦公司的事件一样，Kellogg’s 公司成功惩罚侵权者的几率几乎为零，因为当地的法律不承认知识产权保护的概念。

Reading E

Fortunately, the situation is now much improved following various rounds of negotiations within the World Trade Organization. Nonetheless, international companies must remain vigilant against violation of their intellectual property rights. There are always those who will seek to profit from someone else’s resear ch efforts, financial investment and market goodwill. Innovation will be killed if its rewards cannot be protected by the law.

参考译文：

幸好，在经过许多轮世贸组织的谈判后，情况大为改观。然而，跨国公司必须保持警惕，以防被侵权。总有人试图从别人的研发、投资、商誉中牟利。如果成果得不到法律保护，创新就是空话。

Reading F

Text 2_______________________________________________

You hear a lot about copyright and intellectual property (IP) nowadays, usually from one point of view: that of the copyright holder. That’s not an accident —there’s a lot of money to be made from so-called “intellectual property” rights, and many people will want to convince you that intellectual property rights are necessary and good, rather than being a giant rip-off for consumers across the planet. What you’ll most likely be told is that intellectual prope rty rights need to be protected, otherwise no one will “innovate.” Why invent something if someone else makes all the money from it and you get nothing?

参考译文：

课文二

如今你经常会听到“知识产权”这个词——通常是从产权者嘴里。这不是意外，所谓“知识产权”可是能够让人挣大钱的，所以无数人想使你确信：知识产权是必需的，而不是忽悠全球消费者的大噱头。他们最有可能告诉你，知识产权应该受到保护，否则“创新”无从谈起。可为什么搞出这样一种东西，也就是其他人都从里面挣钱，而你却什么也得不到？

Reading G

While this is a real problem that needs to be addressed, it’s also a limited way of looking at innovation. Innovation is a cooperative process,

a social process that builds upon the work of countless other people. It’s natural for people to innovate, and to work creatively together to find solutions to problems and challenges. Seen from this perspective, protecting IP slows down innovation, because people cannot use each other’s ideas, or even similar ideas, without paying a lot of money or risking a lawsuit.

参考译文：

虽然这是个亟待处理的问题，但它还是种对于创新的狭隘观点。创新是一个合作的过程，是一种建立在无数人努力之上的社会进程。人们很自然地会去创新，会去合作，会去创造性地解决问题。从这个角度看，保护知识产权会阻碍创新，因为人们无法利用各自的创意，甚至是相似的创意，否则就得支付一大笔钱或者面临起诉。

Reading H

If you want an example, look at the IT creativity that exists in the Asian region. It is probably safe to say that a lot of coder s and IT creators cut their teeth on at least some pirated software. Those people now have skills that are invaluable in the modern economy. What if they had been forced to pay the “market price” for legitimate products? They would have been priced out of learning and practising their skills. There’d be fewer people who could innovate in technology. We’d all be

worse off — except for the copyright holders!

参考译文：

如果要找个例子，那就看看亚洲在信息技术方面的创造力。可以说，许多程序员和工程师或多或少都使用过一些盗版软件，以此磨炼技术。这些人如今拥有的技术对现代经济社会是不可或缺的。假设他们不得不支付“市场价”来使用正版软件呢？他们肯定无力承受，从而失去学习的机会。那样的话，在技术领域能够创新的人就会更少。所有人的生活都将变得更糟糕——除了知识产权的拥有者！

Reading I

There’s a reason I’ve put “market price” in scare quotes. Here’s IP’s dirty little secret — IP is anti-free market. If you’ve ever read the finance pages of a newspaper, you’ll know that pro tectionist measures like import tariff sare considered bad for economies because they distort free market prices. But intellectual property rights distort free market prices as well, and by a lot more than things like tariffs do. Think about it: if it is wrong to double market prices by imposing a tariff on a particular good, why is it acceptable to increase prices tenfold on the basis of an intellectual property right? It is well known that things like software and pharmaceuticals are many, many times more expensive when protected by IP rights than when subjected to competition in the free market. If it

is good for the free market to determine prices — and economists say it is — then surely intellectual property rights in their current form must go.

参考译文：

“市场价”被我打了引号是有原因的。知识产权有个肮脏的小秘密：知识产权不参与自由市场竞争。如果你读过报纸的财经版，你会知道像进口关税这样的保护主义政策对经济不利，因为他们破坏了自由市场价格。但是知识产权同样破坏自由市场价格，而且程度上要严重得多。想想看，如果对某样商品征收关税并使其市场价格提高一倍是不对的，那么为什么以知识产权的名义让价格变成十倍就被认可了呢？众所周知，当受到知识产权保护而不是任其在自由市场中竞争时，软件和药品这类产品的价格要高上许多倍。经济学家说让自由市场决定价格大有益处，如果是这样，现行的知识产权保护制度必须改变。

Reading J

So next time you hear intellectual property rights justified in terms of innovation, try this little translation to get the real meaning: “In fact, I don’t mind less innovation, just so long as I can buy a new Porsche. Would you and your friends be kind enough to pay for it?”

参考译文：

所以下次你听到有人以创新的名义大谈知识产权时，转转脑子，你就会明白他的真实意图：“实际上，我才不管有没有创新，只要我能买新款保时捷就行了。你们能不能为我付钱？”