Qualcomm's problem is with their patents licensing respect to competing OEM's, not necessarily with chips sales, which is really a side business, IMO. One regu

Qualcomm's problem is with their patents licensing respect to competing OEM's, not necessarily with chips sales, which is really a side business, IMO. One regulator, KFTC, has found that Qualcomm's "no license, no chip" is a no-no, but why would Qualcomm want to sell chips to customers who have no desire to pay for licenses? Apple has to pay Qualcomm license fee for their patents either way -- whether Apple buys chips from Qualcomm, Intel, or otherwise. Apple is already receiving significant saving -- their royalty is based on the manufacturing cost that Foxconn charges Apple -- or about 1/3 of the retail price. Some of Qualcomm's licensing practices are quite troubling -- no license to competitors, for instance -- but, with respect to Apple's lawsuits, I don't think Qualcomm will have to change their per-device royalty basis.