Sources: FOSS Patents , 
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!!!!