Re: How in hell can "standards-essential patents" exist?
The crux of the matter is that Motorola offered their FRAND licensing to Apple to an amount that falls within the "Fair and Resonable" licensing scheme (albeit likely the top end, but still within the limits), and Apple rejected it and STILL used the patented technology. Similar to Apple suing Samsung for using an OS (which they got from Google) that had rounded corners on icons that are arrayed in a grid on the screen. If the technology supplied by Qualcomm is the only infringment in question, and if the licensing to Qualcomm covers third-parties that use said Qualcomm chips, then Motorola doesn't have a leg to stand on. Of course, this is likely not the case, or else this suit would have been readily tossed already.