Sources: FOSS Patents , 
quote: ...how much money is Apple paying the German government, anyway?
quote: Motorola's pathetic use of FRAND patents in this way, doomed to failure, is an indicator of how weak their legal position is and how poorly they are managed. Hence their slow obliteration in the mobile market.
quote: I think what's upsetting people is that trivial stuff like "swipe to unlock" is the basis for potential product embargoes, but patents regarding technology essential for modern communications are swept aside in court. In a reasonable system, both would be thrown out.While the FRAND thing is "voluntary" in the sense that a company could choose not place their patents under these terms, but those that don't will likely either:A) Not get their standards adopted (i.e. "standardized") orB) Get slapped with lawsuits for monopolistic practices.
quote: but patents regarding technology essential for modern communications are swept aside in court
quote: As for the patent system in general, I think I agree with your first sentence - the trivial 'swipe to unlock' stuff is distorting yours (and others) perspective on this case which has nothing to do with 'swipe to unlock'. I think you are expressing your grievance over an unrelated case and confusing it as having any relation to this case. In my opinion the court did exactly the right thing here, and Motorola can have no complaints whatsoever.
quote: For example a collection of FRAND patents is oft licensed for $0.02 per device. This is very reasonable. It would be also reasonable to allow Apple to sue and potentially win a mandatory licensing settlement of $0.20. (10x premium over FRAND) What I don't see as fair is Apple suing over a relatively minor piece of intellectual property and potentially banning a $200 product. This represents a 10,000x premium versus the FRAND licensing!!!!
quote: It's worth bearing mind that Motorola sued Apple first. I bet they wished they hadn't.
quote: At the same time, stuff that is very obvious (such as a many of Apple's "strong" patents, like swipe to unlock), shouldn't be patentable in the first place. That's where my issue lies.
quote: Stuff always looks obvious once someone has done it and done it successfully
quote: blah, blah, So why should other companies be allowed to copy it without permission?
quote: the mobile patent wars will rumble on for a few more years but they will fade
quote: Because this is how everything has worked in software and science and technology for all of history; it's what Apple DOES, and it's how progress happens. The real question is why shouldn't copying be allowed?
quote: Agreed, but the outcome will have far reaching implications in technology and IP law for decades (essentially all aspects of you and your hypothetical children's lives). So, that outcome is very important, to me, at least.
quote: So I patent the wheel, and sign this FRAND thing, then I am immune to be sued for bogus patents where prior arts were present and all car makers are obliged to pay me?
quote: I don't see how swiping a different direction across the screen is 'clunky' as I find it more convenient.John
quote: If the patent is found to be valid - then your scenario will exist, but I would suggest that your argument should be with the patent and legal system, rather than Apple.
quote: All companies will try to protect whatever they can, to whatever extent they can.
quote: However, regardless of ruling I still take issue with Apple submitting patent proposals on something that someone else came up with, and furthermore, already has patents on it. Such actions are costly to the court system and the companies under attack.
quote: I've never found the "Everyone does it" argument to be particularly compelling, even if it is true. Though, I find it entirely unlikely that Apples legal counsel didn't know about the prior art. As such, the patent in question seems more like a way to inflict short term damage on competitors through injunctions and legal costs. Apple has far more cash on hand for these court cases than their competitors.
quote: That said, I find this articles topic, FRAND abuse, a far more grievous concern , so let's evaluate that for a moment. Motorola offers licenses to everyone, including Apple, so the point of contention is "fair" and "non-discriminatory". As I understand it, Motorola is licensing its IP at the same rate (2.25%) as it does for everyone else. So not discriminatory.
quote: I think this is a little disingenuous. You state 'someone else came up with' as if that is a matter of fact. Even if that is what you believe, it isn't necessarily what Apple believes.
quote: I think 'Every company does it' is a compelling argument. You have to bear in mind that companies are not human entities - they do not necessarily adhere to 'morals' except where doing so increases profit. It is almost their duty to maximise the income from their intellectual property such as patents, and they have to work off the assumption that their competitors will do the same - legally, of course.
quote: Your claim of a 'short term' aim when referring to a patent filed 7 years ago with no knowledge of what would happen in subsequent years would appear contradictory
quote: all the companies in question can handle the legal costs since they have in-house legal teams anyway, and no actual damage has been done yet.
quote: What Apple is doing, arguably, is allowing their own patent every chance to realize its full value.
quote: Apple feel a little aggrieved that everyone else duplicated what they believed was a protected idea.
quote: While the new unlock is clunky, it is likely to prevent Apple from being able to ban the company's products from the market,
quote: with this narrow minded, short sided patent war.
quote: No they (Apple) abused (and continue to abuse) the rules in place using invalid patents that have prior art to prevent competitors from selling a competing product. All Moto/Google needs to do is prove the prior art and invalidate the Apple patent in the appeals court and then sue Apple for X amount of dollars from lost sales from their patent trolling and then add in court costs and legal fees for their trouble. Apple will end up losing a lot of money with this narrow minded, short sided patent war.
quote: Companies who own non-FRAND patents are entitled to refuse to license it to their competitors, and are entitled to enforce said patents in a court of law.
quote: If prior art is demonstrated and proven, then yes, Apple will have to take the cost...
quote: However, it may be that the court cases do not prove that there was prior art, in which case no Android phone will be able to use slide-to-unlock. Which could potentially cost Android and Android manufacturers a lot of money.
quote: Motorola, on the other hand, is NOT entitled to refuse to license Apple a FRAND patent - this is far more severe moral and legal failing.
quote: I don't think this was in question in the previous statement.
quote: No they (Apple) abused (and continue to abuse) the rules in place using invalid patents that have prior art to prevent competitors from selling a competing product