Apple's problem is that they wont deviate from it's strict "We will have everything, and only us. If anyone copies us we will destroy them!" thinking. They should really be thinking "Ok, someone has a similar product or idea to us. Lets see if we can make ours better to make theirs look inferior".
Whatever you think about Apple, Google, Samsung or Motorola, they are ALL as bad as each other.
This is a commonly expressed belief. But its one that fails to take into account the fact that not all patents are developed, issued, or enforced the same way.
In very simple terms, the patents that Apple seeks to enforce are not considered "Standard Essential", whereas the ones that Motorola and Samsung hold generally are "Standard Essential."
What is the difference? If you want to make a cellphone you
have to use technology that uses the Standards Essential patent pool, otherwise it simply won't connect to the network or send and receive data. On the other hand, its been shown pretty conclusively that it IS POSSIBLE to make a smartphone that DOESN'T infringe on Apple's "scroll and bounce back" and "swipe to unlock" patents. Maybe the smartphone isn't as easy to use - but you can still do it.
Because "Standard Essential" patents are generally arrived at by a number of different companies, anti-monopoly rules in the US and Europe put restrictions on how these sorts of patents are used. Otherwise, you could say that the group of patent holders conspired or colluded to prevent other competitors from coming into the market. Therefore Standard Essential patents are usually made with commitments that they will be issued under "Fair Reasonable and Non Discriminatory" licensing terms (FRAND.)
If Apple asserts it Patent rights to "swipe to unlock" - it simply is encouraging other smartphone makers to innovate, to come up with some way of unlocking the phone that is as good as, or better than, Apple's method.
Motorola or Samsung asking for unreasonable or discriminatory licensing terms to use their baseband or wifi patents is simply holding other companies hostage. Companies that use these patents simply have no other way of showing video, or accessing wi-fi or cellular networks, without them. Motorola and Samsung made FRAND commitments at the time the wi-fi, h.264, and cellular standards were written. Now they have seen which companies are profitable, they are trying to change the rules of the game - with very dire implications for the future of technology, and the prices consumers might have to pay for it.
