> The FTC would have you believe that Qualcomm leveraged its patent portfolio in order to unload low quality chips. Citation needed. If anything, it's the rev

> The FTC would have you believe that Qualcomm leveraged its patent portfolio in order to unload low quality chips. Citation needed. If anything, it's the reverse: the FTC complained that Qualcomm leveraged its chips in order to get inflated royalties for a low quality patent portfolio. From the original complaint: > a. Qualcomm withholds its baseband processors unless a customer accepts a license to standard-essential patents on terms preferred by Qualcomm, including elevated royalties that the customer must pay when using competitors’ processors (“no license-no chips”). (Edit: The "elevated royalties" part does imply Qualcomm was also trying to prevent its customers from purchasing its competitors' chips, but the way it allegedly negotiated the agreements with those royalties was by threatening to withhold its own chips. If Qualcomm's chips were low quality, a customer wouldn't have much to fear from such a threat. That is very much not the allegation.)