This article definitely does not hit the nail on the head. Patent holders regularly supply patented technology through a patent license agreement. What exactl

This article definitely does not hit the nail on the head. Patent holders regularly supply patented technology through a patent license agreement. What exactly was discriminatory and not in good faith about the way Qualcomm did it? INHO, a legal ruling this monumental should be way easier to understand for those of us who routinely supply and license proprietary technology. The article does not summarize or explain the actual court's findings: The Court orders the following injunctive relief: (1) Qualcomm must not condition the supply of modem chips on a customer’s patent license status and Qualcomm must negotiate or renegotiate license terms with customers in good faith under conditions free from the threat of lack of access to or discriminatory provision of modem chip supply or associated technical support or access to software. (2) Qualcomm must make exhaustive SEP licenses available to modem-chip suppliers on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms and to submit, as necessary, to arbitral or judicial dispute resolution to determine such terms. (3) Qualcomm may not enter express or de facto exclusive dealing agreements for the supply of modem chips. (4) Qualcomm may not interfere with the ability of any customer to communicate with a government agency about a potential law enforcement or regulatory matter. (5) In order to ensure Qualcomm’s compliance with the above remedies, the Court orders Qualcomm to submit to compliance and monitoring procedures for a period of seven (7) years. Specifically, Qualcomm shall report to the FTC on an annual basis Qualcomm’s compliance with the above remedies ordered by the Court.