"Most things"? Haven't we just learned that if you make a smart phone that looks like a smart phone (rounded rectangle, button below screen) you can (and will) be sued?

I suppose the fact that stuff like that is the area where big legal battles are fought, does imply that a lot of the "hard" patents (radio spectrum/coding, noise cancellation, audio encoding etc) are indeed covered by FRAND patents, though. It still seems to be a bit of a leap to go from there to saying that you'd not run into patents when making a smart phone?

No. The argument re "rounded rectangles" (actually a meme invented by people like yourself) is about trade dress, which in the US is covered by a design "patent", which is not the same thing as a technical patent. This is not difficult to understand. To this day the level of denial around Samsung blatant imitation of the iPhone is staggering.

I'm not sure what (who?) "people like myself" are referring to, but you are indeed right -- while Apple tried to sue on the basis of what I believe is fair to sum up as "something looking like a smart phone (granted the natural technical progression to larger and better touch screens)" -- they only won an injunction for "something that looks confusingly like an iPhone".

I still think that's a rather silly ruling -- and my point was that you could be sued, not that you'd loose (if you had a few million to spare on defending yourself) -- on the basis on a lot of different patent than just the type that are covered by FRAND agreement(s).

By 'people like you' I mean those that continue to perpetuate the meme in an incorrect and dismissive manor.

> To this day the level of denial around Samsung blatant imitation of the iPhone is staggering.

The problem is that I can't think of any other design that a modern smartphone would have other than "piece of glass encased in plastic/metal, with maybe a button underneath". As far as I can see the screen is the phone, and given that constraint there isn't really anywhere else to go.

The thing is that people had been building smartphones since before the iPhone, and none of them looked anything like that. Buttons. Everywhere. The fact that the iPhone form factor is now considered self-evident is a demonstration of Apple's design strength, not of how obvious the form factor is.

Don't forget that to make that form factor work, you need a whole software stack that is able to replace the physical buttons adequately. You need an on-screen keyboard capable of at least equalling a physical keyboard. You need to have virtual buttons that are easy to use. You're going to be doing a lot of scrolling on that tiny screen, so you're going to need some pretty good graphics routines. To make that scrolling anything other than an awful experience you're going to need low-latency right from the capacitive input right through to the content actually moving on the screen. Not easy, especially with the chip used in the original iPhone.

Think about Android. If Android had have been first to market, and they had actually undergone the post-iPhone transformation without the iPhone being present (because don't forget, it was originally going to be a phone with a physical keyboard), they would have released a touch-screen phone with Android 1.0 on it. Android 1.0 was awful. Battery life was rubbish, graphics performance was pathetic, even the keyboard was full of fail. If that had have been the defining capacitive screen smartphone, we may have decided that touchscreen phones were not the right direction.

It took Google, with a large chunk of the smartest engineers on the planet, about 4 years to ge to a point where Android was truly competitive with iOS. It took about 5 years for Microsoft to get Windows Phone to the same place.

Without the software engineering effort, the capacitive screen was not an obvious solution. The fact that Apple invested in that effort made the benefits obvious to everyone, but this was not the case pre-2007.

I don't think it's fair to say the iphone form factor wasn't out there. There was a rich variety of full-screen touch or pen phones (palm, pocket pc, some one-off designs like the lg prada), and there were models designed with a capacitive screen. A lot of people were trying to corner the smartphone market by foregoing a physical keyboard. I still think palm's graffiti was a better way of inputing complex text than any smartphone on-screen keyboard.

It's not that nobody was trying to figure out how to build a smartphone with a big touchscreen, just that they were approaching it from the enterprise space. Usability wasn't important because it wasn't an enterprise selling point. Pen input was important because signature input was key for enterprise. Apple ignored enterprise at first and designed for the consumer market, which allowed for blasphemies like throwing out pen support. The big change was making smartphones a consumer product instead of an enterprise product.

> It took Google, with a large chunk of the smartest engineers on the planet, about 4 years

Google didn't take people off of other projects, and turn every engineer that they had at the problem of "making Android competitive," so this statement is a bit of an exaggeration.

>""piece of glass encased in plastic/metal, with maybe a button underneath"" That isn't what the design patent says. It's far more nuanced.

> "Most things"? Haven't we just learned that if you make a smart phone that looks like a smart phone (rounded rectangle, button below screen) you can (and will) be sued?

Only if you sell in the markets where such patents matter. Note how Jolla is conspicuously absent from the US.

"Most" is not enough. If you have a single not-FRAND patent for Samsung, one for Apple and one for Nokia that you are allegedly violating (even if you're not), then consider your product dead before arrival.

Yes, there are hundred of thousands of FRAND patents that will cost "only" a small percentage (1%-5%) of the product's selling price to license each.

Anyway, no, the patents don't stop you from making a phone for yourself. Nobody will sue you if you do that.

I work in the software industry and have never once worried or even thought about patents in the things I work on. It really depends on what field you work in.

This is only a valid strategy until you have enough money/exposure. Then you get targeted by asshead extortionists and the law is on their side. After the first lawsuit, you will never "never once worry" again.

Well that and whether you are making millions from software sales.