It seems to me that like Apple, we have both FRAND and NON-FRAND patents. This is the reason why Apple has been able to win so many injunctions against Samsung's Galaxy.
Samsung has the right to cross-license or collect on the patents that they declared to ETSI to be essential, for a rate that is ([U]offered[/U] and) considered to be FRANDLY. However, as I understand it, they DO NOT have the right to declare a "FRANDLY" rate for patents that were not declared as such, even if they are universally in demand. 
Anti-Competition laws are to protect competition, not consumers or companies. Since there are devices available and existing at the current time, in all of the differing categories, how can there be a monopoly? Just because Apple did it better, without declaring essentiality to any particular standards group, they have every right to say yes we will be very happy to pay your FRAND rate on our phones that perform according to the standards. HOWEVER, we will be charging 3X that for our non-frandly patents!
(Think Hybrid)
From my previous post.
Two kinds of intellectual property
Some may wonder why the European Commission isn't simultaneously investigating Apple's intellectual property assertions against Samsung. The Commission is monitoring all of those cases, as former competition commissioner Kroes indicated on Twitter in August (see the last part of this blog post). In 2010, the Commission looked into certain iPhone-related policies (development tools and cross-border repair services). But there's a fundamental difference between what Apple and Samsung are doing. Apple doesn't (ab)use any standards-related patents against Samsung. Apple only uses intellectual property rights with respect to which it never made any FRAND licensing commitment to any standard-setting organization.[.b]
There are really two kinds of intellectual property rights. It's quite easy for a participant in a standard-setting process to obtain monopoly power. If you have the leading players in the industry at a table defining an industry standard that everyone implements, everyone who holds patents deemed essential to that standard would be able, theoretically speaking, to shut down everyone else with those patents. [u]That's why a FRAND licensing commitment is an indispensable prerequisite for participating in a standard-setting process.[b] By contrast, it's much harder to develop powerful patents outside of a standard-setting process.
Apple has single-handedly revolutionized an entire industry (if not multiple industries), and that's why it owns valuable patents that are not subject to FRAND licensing commitments.
Magilla 
| 
