From what I understand, FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms) and RAND (Reasonable and non-discriminatory terms) patents are also patents, and the original inventor has to license them at a reasonable rate. But from what I understand, those still have to be licensed, is that correct? Anyone using those patents has to be a reasonable sum to use those patents?
If so, how can Microsoft and Apple appear to be asserting FRAND/RAND defenses against their competitors and avoid paying license fees for these FRAND/RAND patents? Shouldn't they be paying the nominal license fee involved?
On the flip side of this, Microsoft and Apple (well, Microsoft at least) are also aggressively pursuing licenses from other smartphone makers for their own patents. I realize that some of their patents aren't FRAND/RAND, but given that their technology has to be used in end-user products these days - not because they're the best, but because they have become end-user standards - shouldn't there be some sort of reasonable licensing for the patents that they are asserting as well? (Cases in point: Microsoft's FAT file system patents and Apple's touch-to-zoom patent.)