There are exceptions to the general hearsay rule. One such exception is for admissions against one's own interests. Steve's statement wasn't deemed admissible under this exception, but my guess is that Samsung tried to use the exception:
An admission against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule which allows a person to testify to a stament of another that reveals something incriminating, embarassing, or otherwise damaging to the maker of the statement. It is allowed into evidence on the theory that the lack of incentive to make a damaging statement is an indication of the statement's reliability.
Does that still apply if the person who allegedly made the statement is unavailable to deny, verify, interpret or answer to it?
Not that is has any relevance to this case, at all.