The damages were reduced to $600 million after the judge ruled that the jury's used an "impermissible legal theory" to award damages, and ordered a new trial.[1] The jury foreman had a technical background and lied during voir dire by failing to mention that he had history of suing others for patent abuse.[2] He was the one he told the other jurors to ignore prior art and assume that Samsung had violated the patents.[3] So it isn't fair to say that laymen decided the damages.
After the trial, a patent('380, bounce-back) that Apple relied heavily upon during the trial to prove that Samsung was "infringing on their innovative designs" was invalidated by the USPTO.[3] This means that if the jury had been competent and searched for prior art (which the foreman with technical experience told them to ignore), or if Samsung had been allowed to present evidence demonstrating prior art, it is probable that no damages would have been awarded at all.
[1]: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130301161659602
[2]: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121031200136965
[3]:http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130402121308772