Sure. 1) You are putting words in my mouth -- never claimed there was no evidence Qualcomm breached FRAND -- at least with respect to Apple, that is yet to be d

Sure. 1) You are putting words in my mouth -- never claimed there was no evidence Qualcomm breached FRAND -- at least with respect to Apple, that is yet to be determined. There is no doubt that Qualcomm's licensing respect to competing baseband makers (or lack thereof) is clearly a violation of FRAND. What was said: there are real court cases involving Apple and wireless suppliers/patent holders (again, Nokia, Ericsson, Samsung) demonstrating my points that Apple challenged pretty much every wireless patent holders and lost or settled before trial. See Apple vs Samsung in particular where Apple made unsubstantiated claims against Samsung's FRAND violation and was dismissed. Even Apple's own ETSI expert came out testifying against Apple. 2) No, Qualcomm's FRAND licensing rate is published to the public time to time, so they don't look like they are ripping off anybody (or unfair). It's around 3%-5% range per device -- and it is not cheaper than whatever their agreed "preferential" rate is. Apple and FTC fanangled some nebulous calculus to come up with that absurd figure and claim that Qualcomm overcharged Apple. Ask them, not me -- and I bet you'd be surprised how far and silly they are willing to go to make their case against Qualcomm. 3) Apple's view on patent licensing is that while Apple's own frivolous design/utility patents are worth $7-$8 per end-user device (see Apple vs Samsung), everyone else's should be $0.00000X per smallest component that embodies them (see Apple vs Samsung, Nokia, Ericsson, Moto, etc). So Apple's problem here is that wireless companies like Qualcomm have for decades collected 3%-5% per end-user device and Apple doesn't want to pay that much, or anything close to that amount. Apple has little negotiating power since they have so few wireless patents to cross-license, but they are a huge volume customer. With Qualcomm, Apple managed to negotiate some discount, or "rebates" in exchange for exclusivity -- which btw was purposed by Apple, not forced upon by Qualcomm. But Apple still thinks it's too much. Instead of direct legal challenge which had not worked for Apple for years, Apple cleverly persuaded regulators to go after Qualcomm for anti-trust/anti-competition violations, which apparently looks like Apple had planned all long with the exclusivity deal. It's not difficult to understand where Apple stands on these licensing issues if you've followed their lawsuits past several years. I don't want to sound like a tin-foil hat, but at this point, especially after seeing Qualcomm's countersuit, it's not difficult to see how Apple might have plotted all this years ahead.