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.

Here at €S we greeted the oncoming prospect of the London 2012 Olympic Games with an examination of whether it really makes sense economically for a city to host them, which came to the daring conclusion: “It depends.” Now they are over – do we have any preliminary verdict?

Well, there is one from Michel de Poncins of the French on-line commentary site Contretemps, and it is grim:

Les JO de Londres : vers la ruine ? La cérémonie de clôture des JO de Londres a mis dimanche un terme aux fest… http://t.co/OeA9SNfA

August 14, 2012 7:30 am via Social Proxy by MailchimpReplyRetweetFavorite

@Contrepoints

Contrepoints

Vers la ruine? – “towards ruin?” De Poncins asks, and his lede is no more cheery:

The closing ceremony of the London Olympic Games on Sunday put an end to the festivities. Now it’s the hour of drawing up the balance. Were these Games once more a financial catastrophe?

After all, let’s remember that Montréal was still paying for staging the 1976 Summer Games some thirty years later, while the 2004 Games undoubtedly accelerated Greece’s slide into sovereign bankruptcy.

So what about London? First of all, there is Games’ official price-tag: €11 billion. That in itself, claims De Poncins, came in at four times what it originally was supposed to cost. In a sense, though, that doesn’t really matter – because even that €11 billion hardly covers the true cost, which is not really calculable but must be supplemented by “an unknown quantity of adjacent expenses.” Besides, ordinary tourist traffic for the hotels was noticeably lower in London during the Games, and a price must also be added for all the inconvenience they caused to simply getting around the city, during the Games themselves but also during all the construction leading up to them.

Clearly, what we have here is what you could term an “Olympics Scrooge”: De Poncin’s focus is solely on the money-costs, whose extent he claims is unknowable, even while he ignores the less tangible but still potentially substantial benefits that can be accrued from the Olympics of boosting a given city’s image. As we saw in our previous treatment, that certainly was the case for Barcelona in 1992 and even for Munich in 1972 to some degree, despite the massacre of the Israeli athletes. There’s no reason to think a similar effect was missing here; the Games themselves seemed to have been run very well, and press accounts describe even a sort of euphoria eventually taking hold among Londoners over what was going on.

So this isn’t meant to be your most-unbiased accounting of whether the 2012 Games gave to London more than they demanded. Indeed, M. de Poncin has a particular axe to grind: He focuses on costs because he is against governmental spending on the Olympics – or on sport in general – in any form! Olympics lead to unemployment, don’t you know: the greater government spending involved must be supported by higher taxes, which depress the economy, throwing people out of work, etc.

That’s where they are coming from on this Contretemps site. And you can tell, because they now have a second article up on the London Olympics – “A celebration of the virtues of competition.” Lede:

The economy functions in the same way as an Olympic competition. Rivalry tends to make everyone better. And no enterprise or no country can maintain an advantage indefinitely.

This post deviates a bit from the beaten track to which EuroSavant readers are accustomed in that it does not take as its jumping-off point any sort of news article. Also, it has to do with something in Amsterdam, my home-base but nevertheless someplace to which I try not to give any special prominence on this site merely because of that fact.

No, it wasn’t a news article that got me thinking, but rather an e-mail from Vrij (Dutch: Free), which is basically one of the many party-impressario organizations in town – you know, they find someplace to hold a party, promote it, arrange for the equipment, DJ, security, bar staff to be there, and then make their money from tickets and drinks sold minus those costs. And the latest groovy venue they have found, for their party coming up on Friday evening, 14 September, happens to be the Oude Kerk or Old Church – Amsterdam’s oldest surviving building, dating from around 1306 and, well, basically a church.

I admit: this isn’t the first time they have done something like this. I recall receiving e-mailed tidings of at least two previous parties held in the Westerkerk – a different Amsterdam church, not as old of course, but still a plenty old church (1631, if you must know), with the city’s highest churchtower, where Rembrandt is buried (but anonymously, because he died indigent, so we don’t know exactly where), etc.

Maybe I didn’t take a close look at those Vrij communications back then. Anyway, the latest e-mail about the Oude Kerk 14 September event can really take you aback. (Its content is repeated exactly on a webpage on the Vrij site – in Dutch only, of course). (more…)

Those Italians! Gotta love ’em, but be careful about getting to know their language a little too well and then going out on the strada to practice it. You’ll get in trouble if you say things like Sei senza uova nei pantaloni! Literally “you have no eggs in your pants!”, this phrase “is not only vulgar but quite clearly has an insulting dimension.” That’s a quote from the ruling of an Italian judge, in a case in which one cousin was said to have uttered this phrase against another (presumably male) in public. So: Not allowed! The utterer will be hit with some type of legal sanction.

Now, where did this all take place? In Potenza! I kid you not – you can check out the by-line of the report in Der Spiegel yourself if you like!

Update: Ah, now feedback is starting to come in from true Italians, which is revealing the shaky nature of the alleged phrase – gained, after all, through translation by way of German! Why did I think that might not involve problems?

The definitive article is here. (But it’s in Italian – as you would hope! Thanks to my friend Barbara for the reference!) It now seems that non hai le palle (“you’ve got no balls!”) is the phrase we’re talking about – nothing about pants, or uova. That’s what will get you in trouble (or just writing about it, it seems). Nota bene!