Why would Samsung expend the effort to argue the seemingly obvious concept that if the verdict is overturned, the awarded damages should be returned?  Apple&#x27;s position appears to be standard, in claiming victory, and dismissing the possibility that any higher court will come to a different conclusion, thereby refusing to entertain that damages would _need_ to be returned.<p>Under what circumstances would Apple be entitled to keep monetary damages, if, in fact, a higher court reverses the current decision?