That really wasn't the question, or the issue. The iPhone introduced a set of entirely new metaphors to smartphone design and operation and the claim was that Samsung copied that in order to make competitive products, having quickly recognised that the new metaphors would change the market - as indeed they did.
Apple's basic argument is that the iPhone was such a game changer that it spurred massive and almost immediate growth in what was then a relatively small market sector: smartphones. And that if Samsung hadn't illegally copied Apple's work, Apple would have sold a significant proportion of the smartphones which Samsung sold and which were based on Apple's intellectual property.
It's hard to judge whether Apple are right in that regard, but there is no doubt that the way smartphones worked before the iPhone and the way they worked after it has changed the dynamics of that market sector massively. It follows that they generated a great deal of interest in smartphones that otherwise wouldn't have existed. Samsung's best defence to keep a lid on potential damages payable would be to argue that Apple's pricing (non-subsidised via AT&T if you recall) meant that much of that interest would not have translated into actual sales, and that where Samsung took advantage of the market was in undercutting Apple's prices and thus generating new sales Apple wouldn't have had.
