So, what you say about exhaustion is a correct explanation of the doctrine. However, unless my searching capabilities are failing (sorry, it's 170 pages), they

So, what you say about exhaustion is a correct explanation of the doctrine. However, unless my searching capabilities are failing (sorry, it's 170 pages), they nowhere claim that intel is paying qualcomm. Instead, the only viable claim for exhaustion they really make is around exhaustion of patents in qualcomm chipsets bought by apple. That is probably right. But not a significant amount of this money (if any, i didn't look what qualcomm claimed hard enough. I wouldn't put it past them but it would be stupid of them) The majority of money is precisely about modems they buy from intel. If intel was paying qualcomm, it would definitely appear in the response as an exhaustion argument I can't find it. This is probably why bloomberg doesn't cite it - the exhaustion issues they do cite are a complete sideshow.