[AT&T Samsung Galaxy S II Skyrocket SGH-I727] SanFrancisco:
It means nothing.

As far as Samsung is concerned the SGS II is reaching its end of life: A) It will be a year old next month. That is equivalent to seven years in "cell phone years." B) It was just announced (09-04-2012) that Samsung has sold over 20 million of the Samsung Galaxy S III. And C) As I recall reading somewhere, the SGS II now comprises less than 1% of Samsung's current sales.

In regards to current SGS 2 owners, an injunction would not issue against us. There's no way a court would order current owners to return their phones.

Nor will a court order Samsung to stop supporting the device. (Albeit I am hard pressed to think of any company that contractually supports a year-old device. E.g., regardless of manufacturer we are lucky on a year-old mobile to get Android updates. If we do, that is out of the "generosity" of the manufacturer or carrier, not because of a contractual obligation.)

Regardless of one's view of the Apple v. Samsung case, remember in U.S. courts the goal is to make a Plaintiff whole by awarding damages, NOT to punish customers who bought the phone over the past year.

Bonus Comment (legal mumbo jumbo): In regards to the injunction Apple seeks, to pull existing U.S. inventory and stop selling the SGS II: 1) Such an injunction applies ONLY to U.S. sales; the court has no jurisdiction on activity outside U.S. borders; 2) generally an injunction halting sales would NOT issue if damages can be calculated and awarded; 3) the jury did award damages, so quantifying damages is not difficult, apparently; 4) to get an injunction Apple would have to show irreparable harm, that damages could not address; 5) IMO Apple cannot meet these elements. For example, it is easy to calculate damages on past sales and attach a mandatory royalty payment to each SGS II sold in the future. (That's what they did in the Nokia case that Apple settled, where Apple agreed to pay Nokia a few dollars on every iPhone sold.); and 6) Apple has the burden of proof to get the prohibitory injunction (stop selling certain products). If Apple cannot meet any one of these elements (and there's more), then an injunction should not issue.

Super Bonus Comment: IMO given that Samsung has won similar cases either filed by Apple or Samsung against Apple (see Nokia, where Apple settled by paying Nokia close to $1 billion for Apple's infringement; See Japan; See Germany), I suspect that this case will be reversed on appeal.

IMO an appeals court will look at this as an attempt by Apple to force people to buy their products, if we won't willingly buy them. These kinds of suits harm the consumer by limiting choice. Fact is, Apple uses these lawsuits to stifle competition. Apple figures that since it has the money to pay the lawyers, why not use the courts to limit or stomp out competitors of its hardware, software, or service. Lawsuits are included in many businesses toolbox of competitive business practices.

Besides, I don't see where Apple proved it lost sales because, for example, the SGS II looked like an iPhone. When choosing the SGS II or SGS consumers knew exactly what they were buying. This is not the same as someone buying a bottle of wine thinking it is a competitor's product.