If Apple is saying "you violated patent XYZ by copying the iPhone" but the iPhone doesn't implement anything to do with patent XYZ, it might be hard to convince

If Apple is saying "you violated patent XYZ by copying the iPhone" but the iPhone doesn't implement anything to do with patent XYZ, it might be hard to convince a jury that any actual patent infringement happened. Of course reading some of the comments here, few people seem to understand this, so it might be easy to convince a jury.