[patrickaljord]

So if Samsung builds ground breaking technology that is so important that it gets included in every smartphone, they can't charge more than 1c per chip. However, if Apple builds trivial "slide to unlock", they can charge $25 per phone and block devices from entering the market? What is the incentive of doing research and developing important wireless technologies if you'll be less rewarded than the company who developed "slide to unlock". Shouldn't important techs get the most rewards? I'm against software patents, but if the law's going to support them at least it should be coherent.

[josephlord]

If Apple charge $25 for a patent that isn't worth that much then people won't licence it and will find alternatives. If Samsung charges a high rate for one patent (of hundreds) people have to either completely drop the standard or pay.

I don't know if the Samsung patents are groundbreaking or not. It could be that there were other similar options the standards committee could have selected but with Samsung in the room the choice with the Samsung patent was made so all implementers need a license.

Big companies often want to get their technology into the standard as that enables them to get a small per unit license fee across large numbers of devices. I know that was the case when I worked at Sony. If Samsung didn't want to make that patent FRAND they could have made it clear during standardisation and I'm sure it would have been left out. If patents in this area don't get into standards they are effectively worthless.

Remember that the a group of competitors sitting in a room discussing future terms of business is either a standards committee or an illegal cartel. The difference is the rules under which they operate to give others access to the market which include the FRAND commitments.

[Peaker]

The problem is a patent may be worth so much because it is so trivial that doing anything else is silly.

Apple should never have been granted a patent for slide-to-unlock, that's a trivial consequence of using a touchscreen UI.

[josephlord]

I'm not sure that really is the case. Nokia, Sony Ericcson, Palm and MS had touchscreen handhelds for years before the iPhone. Either that should have generated clear prior art or there are other options that aren't silly. If Apple came up with something new that really makes all the old ways seem silly maybe it really is a valuable technology that they can charge high prices for.

If the Apple patent is shown to be invalid they won't get anything and Samsung won't have to work around it but whatever the situation there is no value in comparing prices between FRAND and non FRAND patents.

I don't recall any of the tech giants including Google and Samsung campaigning to get rid of whole categories of patents of for other major reforms. I would like patent reform but The law as it exists should be enforced.

Edit: Note that in this and my earlier post I am not commenting on the validity of either sides patents or what exactly the damages or license fees for either should be BUT that there is little value making a comparison between FRAND committed prices and those for any non FRAND prices.

[Peaker]

> Nokia, Sony Ericcson, Palm and MS had touchscreen handhelds for years before the iPhone

They had enough physical buttons to make button unlock a viable option.

When you have only a touchscreen, the gestures available to you are taps and swipes. Taps easily happen accidentally, so some composition of swipes to unlock is the main obvious remaining option.

[josephlord]

If that is the case anyone can work around the patent for the cost of a hardware button.

Those saying this is a major critical feature (I'm not)that reduces hardware costs and improves product design are really making the case that it is a good patent, novel and useful.

[Peaker]

Then what you consider the invention here is really the touch screen and not the unlocking. Adding a physical button just for unlocking is less obvious than just using a gesture already available.

[gareim]

FRAND patents are going to be more widely used and seen as more "essential". Slide to unlock is not exactly "essential" and more of an option. It's more optional than a FRAND patent would be.