Apple should never have been granted a patent for slide-to-unlock, that's a trivial consequence of using a touchscreen UI.
If the Apple patent is shown to be invalid they won't get anything and Samsung won't have to work around it but whatever the situation there is no value in comparing prices between FRAND and non FRAND patents.
I don't recall any of the tech giants including Google and Samsung campaigning to get rid of whole categories of patents of for other major reforms. I would like patent reform but The law as it exists should be enforced.
Edit: Note that in this and my earlier post I am not commenting on the validity of either sides patents or what exactly the damages or license fees for either should be BUT that there is little value making a comparison between FRAND committed prices and those for any non FRAND prices.
They had enough physical buttons to make button unlock a viable option.
When you have only a touchscreen, the gestures available to you are taps and swipes. Taps easily happen accidentally, so some composition of swipes to unlock is the main obvious remaining option.
Those saying this is a major critical feature (I'm not)that reduces hardware costs and improves product design are really making the case that it is a good patent, novel and useful.
Either the designers didn't think about this approach or thought it wasn't the best solution. If anyone produced such a solution or documented it the patent should be invalidated for prior art.
My initial reaction to the patent was probably that is a bit trivial but better than many that get granted and that there should be plenty of workarounds. The slide to unlock definitely seems obvious once you have seen it but I'm not sure it is so obvious before you have seen it (it's quite hard to unwind your mind to a state of unknowing). You certainly need to asking the right questions: how can we remove all the buttons, how do you prevent it waking too easily.
There is no need for touchscreen phones to go completely buttonless. That is a design choice not an essential feature to exist in the market.
I don't know if the Samsung patents are groundbreaking or not. It could be that there were other similar options the standards committee could have selected but with Samsung in the room the choice with the Samsung patent was made so all implementers need a license.
Big companies often want to get their technology into the standard as that enables them to get a small per unit license fee across large numbers of devices. I know that was the case when I worked at Sony. If Samsung didn't want to make that patent FRAND they could have made it clear during standardisation and I'm sure it would have been left out. If patents in this area don't get into standards they are effectively worthless.
Remember that the a group of competitors sitting in a room discussing future terms of business is either a standards committee or an illegal cartel. The difference is the rules under which they operate to give others access to the market which include the FRAND commitments.