But People are not buying an iPhone because of LTE, as almost every other phone has that too, but because of the Apple brand, app ecosystem, lock-in, ease of use, design, manufacturing quality, marketing, etc etc ... all that is value Apple provides, not Qualcomm.
FRAND stands for "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms". How is it not discriminatory to charge companies, who operate in different market segments, different amounts for the same needed part?
The whole point of granting a patent is that it's a monopoly. I think it can be argued that the amount of time the patent is valid for is not optimal for maximizing the most social gains over all possible futures, but I think it's greater then 0.
Yes, people buy apple products for lots of reasons, but would apple have made 50% of Qualcomms market cap in profits from iPhone each year if it was a gsm device? Qualcomm can argue that it's pricing is Fair and Readonable since it does not inhibit Apple from making a mountain of money. There is nothing out of the ordinary for charging people a different price (unless it's because they are a protected class, but that's a separate issue)
FRAND stands for "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms". How is it not discriminatory to charge companies, who operate in different market segments, different amounts for the same needed part?