The tech world lately has been buzzing about the verdict in the patent-infringement case that Apple brought against Samsung, for allegedly copying for its Android-based smartphones many features for which Apple thought it held patent protection. And the jury did largely rule in Apple’s favor, in what the NYT’s writer called a “decisive victory.”

But was it really so decisive? Over in Germany, the Bild Zeitung begs to differ:

Patentstreit mit #Apple – Darum lacht Samsung über die Klatsche http://t.co/79yRbm0H

August 25, 2012 12:30 pm via dlvr.itReplyRetweetFavorite

@BILD

BILD.de

The take there is rather that the jury’s verdict was one of the best things that could happen to Samsung, despite the $1.05 billion in damages it was ordered to pay Apple. (The case is now on appeal.) Why?

1. First of all, that $1.05 billion for Samsung is not really serious money. It can afford to pay that, easily: its net profit just in the second quarter this year was $4.5 billion.
   
2. OK, if the money isn’t a serious consideration, maybe the possible prohibition (a judge has decide, after appeal) on selling any more of those Samsung smartphones that violate the Apple patents will hit Samsung where it hurts? Not really, says this piece: “A sales prohibition is hardly a problem!” That’s because Samsung is so capable of bringing out new models that skirt the new prohibitions that the company will hardly miss a step. Indeed, there’s little doubt it already has such models prepared and ready to sell right now.
   
3. Then again, while Samsung can probably handle a sales-prohibition as above, most of its smaller competitors could encounter problems in doing the same – which they would have to do, however, to avoid being hauled to court by Apple as well. So the effect of this ruling on the Android smartphone industry could be that of separating the men from the boys – and propelling Samsung well ahead of its competitors.

Finally, there is the oft-cited principle that “there’s no such thing as bad publicity.” Through this landmark case alone Samsung has been able to increase the reach and recognizability of its brand substantially. Indeed, the article cites a recent poll conducted in Asia which for the first time puts Samsung in first place when it came to brand recognition, ahead of Apple and all the others.

On the other hand, one must also keep in mind that this analysis has no byline*, and that it was published in the foremost example of the German common or “street” press – i.e. a publication more known for its nude women on page 3 than its business analysis. Is it plausible nonetheless? I leave that to readers to decide.

*Well OK, it was apparently written by Bild’s “Daniel,” but I can’t find any last name.

Northern Europeans are temperate and level-headed – can we accept that as a working proposition? (Except of course when they’re binge-drinking.) In the midst of all this iPad-hoopla, then, let’s just give one to a Scandinavian, say, and see the reaction.

Here at EuroSavant we have just the guy, someone whose commentary we’ve followed and commented upon many times before, namely Poul Høj, US correspondent for the excellent Danish daily Berlingske Tidende. And Høj has delivered his verdict on the latest Apple sensation, with a recent entry on his “USABlog” called iPad and machine-fanatics.

Don’t get him wrong: Høj is hardly some anti-tech reactionary. No, the introduction of the iPad certainly makes the world of technology a richer place. (Or at least the US part of it; it won’t be on sale over here in the Old Continent until 24 April.) He’s just finds much of the reaction rather disconcerting, like “Jesus!”, “gamechanger!” and (from Newsweek) “the iPad will change everything!”

Wait a second, he says: should I throw away my laptop now? Of course not. Frankly, in Høj’s eyes the iPad furore is merely something he has clearly seen before – and no, he’s not talking about the iPhone, he’s talking about Facebook, which was also supposed to be the next big thing that transformed everything, but which turns out still to have plenty of competitors (like Google Buzz).

Look, Høj writes, the iPad is ultimately just another gadget, just another machine, with its fans and detractors, its advantages and its disadvantages. The latter, by the way, are considerable and he provides his list:

• No printer;
  
• No USB ports;
  
• Famously, no Adobe Flash-video;
  
• No multitasking;
  
• No camera;
  
• No kitchen sink – sorry, that’s not Høj, I sneaked that one in;
  
• And most of all, no “apps” available that would pose any threat in the least to Steve Jobs or his company, since they all have to be Apple-approved to be available for download/sale in the first place.

It’s good to have the iPad, to be sure, but in Høj’s eyes it’s just another purchase-choice. Is it enough to tempt someone to replace his/her laptop+Blackberry combination? Quite possibly not. So enough with all the hyperventilation, already!