Yep. Most wireless SEP holders (Standard Essential Patent) don't license at component-level (ie, modem). They usually collect royalties at system-level with sm

Yep. Most wireless SEP holders (Standard Essential Patent) don't license at component-level (ie, modem). They usually collect royalties at system-level with smartphone OEMs. That's more or less been accepted as de facto industry practice for decades. >My understanding was that Qualcomm is going after Apple because they think Apple is sort of the principal infringer, i.e. they gave Intel access to the infringing IP. But I don't know, maybe they just pursuit all parties in the name of thoroughness. Well, they are two separate issues.. If you are familiar with GT Advanced Tech or had any past experience working with Apple as a supplier, it's not difficult to see why Apple and Qualcomm are here. TLDR, Apple doesn't want to pay; claims Qualcomm is overcharging and Qualcomm is a monopoly. Apple is also known for making onerous demands to supplier for winning their iPhone order. In this case, Apple demanded Qualcomm's source code for their chipset and now Qualcomm alleges that Apple gave QC's trade secret to Intel, who is now Apple's baseband supplier.