> Apple has a dispute with pricing, and whether it should be charged a flat rate instead of % of devices. No. Apple isn't saying it should be charged a "flat r

> Apple has a dispute with pricing, and whether it should be charged a flat rate instead of % of devices. No. Apple isn't saying it should be charged a "flat rate," but that a percentage rate should be based on the price of component, ie, modem, not system, ie, smartphone. According to documents/testimony revealed during the last trial, before the 4G license hike, Apple was on average paying $7.50 per device, but Apple "wanted" to pay $1.50 for Qualcomm's entire wireless portfolio, a bargain considering how much Apple had asked for a handful of frivolous utility/design patents from Samsung, around $7.0 for each patent per device. Again, it's common wireless industry practice embraced by wireless participants for decades now. Apple is way late to the game and is trying to change the rule of the game to maximize their bottom line. Apple's past legal challenge to change this has fallen flat, so this time around Apple is using the FTC as proxy to fight their battle. While Apple's hometown judge Koh surprisingly had given Apple an upper hand on this as JML (pretrial judgement as matter of law), this would be appealed and, many expect Koh's biased, flawed theory to be reversed. > I don't see Apple trying to argue for patent exhaustion and Intel should be paying for it. Apple has in fact been arguing "patent exhaustion" and that Intel should also be able to license at component-level, against the industry convention where royalties are collected at device/system level. Koh's decision was obviously in Apple's favor, but again this remains to be seen. Qualcomm is not going to take this lying down since this cuts into their most profitable licensing business.