>That's an eternity in tech years but barely overnight in court years.
That sounds like a lot of nonsense. No, it isn't the lack of time or convoluted legal process hindering the industry or discovery of such licensing violation. Companies like Apple, TCL challenged the wireless industry, but lacking evidence or substance to back up their argument, Apple usually settled at the last minute (take for example, Apple's lawsuit against Nokia in 2008, 2016). When there was a realm full case (Samsung vs Apple, USITC 337-TA-794), it found Apple's abuse of FRAND obligation by reverse hold-up, and Apple subsequently lost all of its claims on Samsung's FRAND violation (even Apple's own ETSI FRAND experts came out testifying against Apple).
> Isn't the baseband chip the SSPPU in all of those cases? How is that not the single aggregation point?
No, there are other components, according to Qualcomm, that are not embedded in the baseband, such as security framework.
> The point is that they can't. Otherwise why do two devices with the exact same wireless capability, even the exact same wireless baseband chip, have significantly different prices?
If your gripe is your inability to understand what a percentage-based licensing model is (vs per unit price, vs exclusionary, vs lump-sum models), I can't help you there. I already explained to you why the wireless industry's licensing is fair and gave you various legal analysis/factors courts consider to determine fair, or at least to weed out extortionate, licensing schemes in patent cases. In your hypothetical $1M house, I clarified that the patents wireless features don't add any value or create market demand for $1M house, so that's a no-go. However, for mobile devices like Apple iPhone, the wireless SEPs are not only intrinsic part of the product, but also significantly increase the market value (by 100%-200% in comparison to the iPod Touch) and creates market demand that wouldn't otherwise exist . Some, eg, TCL vs Ericsson, like judge Selna ruled and estimates that 10% of wholesale end-user device is an appropriate aggregated FRAND rate for the whole 4G stack; while China's NDRC believes domestic Chinese companies deserve some more discount (about 50% of whatever everyone else deems fair; or 5% of end-user device).
> ... The whole point of treating standards essential patents specially is that compatibility with the standard is worth significantly more than the contribution of any individual company's patents, because it's a holdup for the ability to implement the standard and communicate with the cellular network.
Sure, and these goals of wireless standards don't preclude SEP holders from profiting from their invention. FRAND commitment doesn't mean charity. FRAND obligation and wireless standards don't exist solely to serve device-makers's interest and to increase their bottom-line. The industry licensing model as it currently stands enables SEP holders to partake in end-user makers sales while lowering the licensing burden by new low-cost mobile device makers. They achieve all that in addition to promoting wide industry adoption, inter-operability of their technical standards.
You could theorize potential abuses of hold-up, royalty stacking, etc all you want -- I have yet to hear any actual "hold-up" by wireless SEP holders, but there is at least one known case of "reverse hold-up" by a rogue unwilling device maker, Apple.