In the past, Qualcomm was infamous for high licensing fees.
However, part of the process of creating an open industry standard like 4G/5G is getting a legally binding commitment from the patent holders to license standards essential patents to all takers on "reasonable" terms.
> If the patent holder refuses upon request to license a patent that has become essential to a standard, then the standard-setting organization must exclude that technology.
I imagine the 2G network they are talking about is GSM, which is a 2G open standard created in the EU and used internationally.
> It was first implemented in Finland in December 1991. By the mid-2010s, it became a global standard for mobile communications achieving over 90% market share, and operating in over 193 countries and territories.
However, part of the process of creating an open industry standard like 4G/5G is getting a legally binding commitment from the patent holders to license standards essential patents to all takers on "reasonable" terms.
> If the patent holder refuses upon request to license a patent that has become essential to a standard, then the standard-setting organization must exclude that technology.
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discrimina...
So Qualcomm is still entitled to some money, but not nearly as much as they made back when there was no legal restriction on what they could demand.