Because there is no way of calculating the potential cost of the damage to Samsung's reputation.
Plus, it makes far more sense to tackle the root of the problem — the harm caused to Samsung's reputation — by ordering Apple to make public announcements that its allegations against them were false.
So it should be fine to break the law and commit any sort of crime against a company, and the only penalty should be giving them make-up money after the fact?
The lifeblood of a company is money, so yes. Phrasing it as "make-up money" implies it always has to be a slap on the wrist. It doesn't. It can be a devastating amount.
Is this intended to be punitive (as suggested by your "devastating amount" phrase), or is it indented to make-whole the injured party?
If industrial espionage sets back a company's R&D by a decade, you can't fix that with money. Throwing money at the problem won't magically get your research back. It won't magically get your market-leading position back after your competitors take advantage of your setback. And we're not even starting on what happens if the party doing the injuring goes bankrupt before paying all that is owed.
The idea that money is a magic panacea that fixes everything is completely wrong.
It is an example to show that a monetary payment is not always sufficient to repair any harm caused.
For another example, you could consider the case where a company has lost a dominant market position due to libel and slander from a competitor. Being given money wouldn't magically repair that company's market position.
