There is no third option. You can't decide after the trillion dollar industry establishes, to renege on FRAND
To play devils advocate though: What you consider "fair" licensing terms might change.
Maybe Samsung finds it absolutely fair that their patents should be valued higher, when Apple has 60% profit margins selling essentially the same product they do, made by parts they make, yet they only have 20% margins themselves. That hardly seems fair, does it?
And if you disagree about that, how would you argue that it is technically unfair? There is no doubt about Apple making a shitload right now. "Fair" is really a pretty shitty legal term, open for lots of wish-washy interpretation, instead of some simple black and white.
Note that FRAND is fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. That last part is an explicit promise to treat all users the same, irrespective of their profit margins or anything else.
I'm not arguing that. I'm just arguing that the "no third option" is overly simplistic.
Samsung can decide to change their licensing terms if they deem them no longer "fair", as you note, as long as it is done in a non-discriminatory fashion.
Edit: Oh well. That's what playing devil's advocate gets me :)
To play devils advocate though: What you consider "fair" licensing terms might change.
Maybe Samsung finds it absolutely fair that their patents should be valued higher, when Apple has 60% profit margins selling essentially the same product they do, made by parts they make, yet they only have 20% margins themselves. That hardly seems fair, does it?
And if you disagree about that, how would you argue that it is technically unfair? There is no doubt about Apple making a shitload right now. "Fair" is really a pretty shitty legal term, open for lots of wish-washy interpretation, instead of some simple black and white.