Also, the article quotes “Adam Mossoff, a law professor at George Mason University” without disclosing that Qualcomm funds GMU exactly so it will get favorable press like this.[1]
I expect better from WaPo.
Obtw it's very likely that Apple applied leverage to convince FTC to bring their suit.
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.)
The patents are broad enough that a functional, standards-compliant modem can not be made without paying royalties to Qualcomm.
And it’s their patent and licensing policy that makes Qualcomm a lousy company to work with. It has nothing to do with the quality of their products.