[tooltalk]

>> The Google/Motorola/Microsoft case (and associated FTC order) shows that Qualcomm will not be able to pull the same price gouging shenanigans with patents that are encumbered by requirements to license under FRAND terms.

sigh. Again you are throwing around court cases that don't support Apple or your claim. The Motorola case isn't nearly "associated" in anyway to the FTC case. Further, the FTC case was reversed in an unanimous decision -- due to its flawed construction of Qualcomm's monopoly in premium LTE segment and Apple's sweetheart judge Lucy Koh's overly expansive intrepretation of the antitrust law. The FTC's case is all, but dead and there would be no further legal challenge -- no SCOTUS justice is going to put up with a deceptive kabuki threater concocted by Apple and their Democratic operatives at FTC.

>> The standards essential 4G/5G patents are all encumbered by requirements to license to all comers on FRAND terms.

Qualcomm's licensing terms are FRAND -- just because Tim Apple doesn't like it doesn't mean that it's not FRAND. It's not about Tim Apple's feeling or Apple's margin, but rather about reasonable, acceptable industry licensing practices.

[GeekyBear]

If you can't be bothered to stick to factual arguments, I really can't be bothered to care about your opinions.

[tooltalk]

Sure, just b/c you haven't actually read anything you cited, simply don't understand how licensing/indusry works, doesn't mean that my arguements aren't factual. Thank you for playing.