It seems that there is a lot of focus on Qualcomm's strong-arm monopoly tactics. But that seems to me to work exactly as designed - patents are intended to lit

It seems that there is a lot of focus on Qualcomm's strong-arm monopoly tactics. But that seems to me to work exactly as designed - patents are intended to literally grant a temporary monopoly to reward the holder for the expensive research work that otherwise wouldn't have happened. If Qualcomm won't license someone a patent for whatever reason, that is up to them. Clearly if customers are deciding to pay the price, it must be worth it. In fact, Apple itself did after realizing Intel can't deliver the 5G chipsets on time. The article points out where QCOM actually violated a contract, though. It's related to FRAND patents [1] - they committed to licensing a certain set of patents this way so they can be included in a standard, something very valuable to Qualcomm, and then later reneged on that commitment. That I can totally side with. But all the other bellyaching about QCOM the big bad monopolist for other reasons is missing the point IMO. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminat...