CNET.com cites a brief by Professor Mark Lemley criticizing a ruling requiring companies to pay damages for unknowingly infringing on design patents in accordance to their profit. 

Commentary: As Apple's self-destructive campaign against Android winds down, all that's left to fight over are damages in two US cases involving basic design elements.

...

Reports of a partial cease-fire in the patent war between Apple and Samsung over various design features of the iPhone is certainly welcome news.

Ever since late Apple founder Steve Jobs promised "thermonuclear war" to destroy Google's Android operating system, the mobile ecosystem has been engulfed in over a hundred largely pointless lawsuits, with Apple claiming ownership of such basic features as the rectangular shape of a smartphone, its rounded corners, and the colored icons of the home screen.

...

In a scholarly brief filed in late May by leading US patent expert Mark Lemley of Stanford Law School, 27 law professors argued that the trial judge's interpretation of the damages provision for design patents made little sense. According to the judge, infringement of any single design patent, even by someone unaware of the existence of the patent, required the jury to calculate damages based on the total profits of the infringing product.

...

It makes no sense, Lemley argues, to imagine that the buyers of a smartphone make their decision solely on the basis of its rectangular shape, or, worse, that the actual operation of the device plays no part in their purchase.

"People don't buy iPhones simply because they look cool; they buy them because they function," Lemley writes.