Re: Next legal argument:
It would be interesting to consider something like a mercury delay line memory. In those the data is never sitting still, it's bouncing up and down a tube full of mercury as sound waves. From one point of view it is at rest, because there's no second party receiving it. But physically it is being transmitted...
Apply the same concept to a radio signal bounced off the moon. Such a system is intending that there is no second party receiving it, but it's definitely a radio transmission and it's definitely available for reception by any other party on that side of the planet.
I doubt such exotica will be found in Samsungs any time soon...
On the whole this sounds like a sensible decision by the court.
I noticed that the court laid into the defences' various legal experts who'd argued that it was being transmitted. This is none trivial. All of those technical experts have now been tagged as having been trying to pull the wool over a court's eyes, and doing so with crude and obvious ruses of language (to paraphrase what the judgement said). These guys have just ended their careers as expert witnesses.
The language used by the judgement sounds like they've come pretty close to annoying that judge, and effectively come close to perjury... The role of expert witness does not give one license to say whatever the lawyer hiring oneself wants you to say.
And in these cases, they have made an incorrect and dumb argument in court presumably having given the lawyer and their (allegedly pretty nasty) client some assurances along the lines of "This one is in the bag". So now those lawyers and their clients, who may have not followed other lines of defence thanks to those assurances, are disappointed and maybe be asking questions like " where's my refund?", and "how long can you hold your breath?".