I think the more charitable interpretation would be "We have realized that Qualcomm's licensing, that we agreed to, isn't legal." From what I understand Apple's

I think the more charitable interpretation would be "We have realized that Qualcomm's licensing, that we agreed to, isn't legal." From what I understand Apple's argument has essentially been that they don't need to license the technology from Qualcomm due to having an implicit license via extinguishment at the level of their suppliers. Put that way it becomes "Qualcomm has lied and tried to trick us into paying for something we already had rights to." There's still an outstanding court case to settle this and from what I understand the pretrial judgement is not favorable to Qualcomm.