1. that's fine. Again, it depends on how much value LTE adds to the end product and, 2. if Qualcomm can prove that LTE adds significant value to the core funct

1. that's fine. Again, it depends on how much value LTE adds to the end product and, 2. if Qualcomm can prove that LTE adds significant value to the core functionining of the product and consumer demand driven by Qualcomm's patented features is significant, they are all entitled to it. In patent cases, the courts use similar underlying concepts (eg, Georgia Pacific analysis) to determine what's fair. In Apple's case, there is significantly cheaper alternative to the iPhone without Qualcomm's patented feature, the iPod touch. But we also know from Apple's own sales figure that much greater number of consumers are willing to pay much higher price for the iPhone precisely because of Qualcomm's wireless functionality. 3. Apple has in the past demanded as much as $8 per, or about 1.5% of, end-device price, for frivolous patents such as slide-to-unlock, rounded-corners, etc (for a total of $30, or about 5%, of end-user device for four such patents). Qualcomm's published rate is somewhere between 3%-5% based on Foxconn's manufacturing cost, or less than 2% of the retail price. In comparison to Apple's own licensing practices, IMO, that's a bargain.