Well, Qualcomm collects royalties from Foxconn, not directly from Apple. So AAPL's royalty to Qualcomm is essentially based on Foxconn's manufacturing price, not Apple's retail price. Apple is paying nowhere close to what most people think Apple is paying.
Apple did participate in KFTC's case against Qualcom, but I think it's still a bit difficult to prove Apple's direct harm. I mean I could see clearly how Qualcomm's direct competitors were harmed by their licensing malpractices -- eg, Qualcomm refusal to license, it's more difficult to quantify Apple's loss.
One way to understand the lawsuit between Apple v Qualcomm is that Apple believes that their patents are worth $8 per device (see Samsung 2012), while everyone else's, especially Standard Essential Patents, are $0.00000000x per device. So Apple is just trying to squeeze their suppliers.
Apple did participate in KFTC's case against Qualcom, but I think it's still a bit difficult to prove Apple's direct harm. I mean I could see clearly how Qualcomm's direct competitors were harmed by their licensing malpractices -- eg, Qualcomm refusal to license, it's more difficult to quantify Apple's loss.
One way to understand the lawsuit between Apple v Qualcomm is that Apple believes that their patents are worth $8 per device (see Samsung 2012), while everyone else's, especially Standard Essential Patents, are $0.00000000x per device. So Apple is just trying to squeeze their suppliers.