There's a very good reason for Apple to drop their case - they got their royalty rates changed to a single per-chip fee instead of the stupid "percentage of device cost plus some extra fees added on top double-dipping" that Qualcomm was asking for.
Erricsson charges $5 per multimode handset for SEP patents with zero chip technology.
The cost for Qualcomm is
2.275% for a single mode handset SEP - 4% complete portfolio including software
3.25% for a multimode handset SEP - 5% complete portfolio including software
The percentage is capped at a device cost of $500.
The premise of the cost is not necessarily silly.
Apple is still paying that way. They have a six year license and a multiyear silicon/chip agreement.
The structure of percentage allows low cost phones in emerging markets to have lower licensing fees vs expensive smart phones in developed countries. Developed markets subsidize emerging markets. You may not like it, but that doesn't necessarily make it silly.
So since Ericsson charges for SEP and never sells you a chip, but Qualcomm sells a chip also; you think Qualcomm should roll silicon cost and licensing together? Okay.
You can have the chip at $12+a percentage of the cost of the device. Now it's all rolled together but the price didn't change. SEP does not require a company to sell chips. It also doesn't force a company to do anything but license their technology in a fair and non discriminatory manner.
Both Ericsson and Qualcomm charge the license on the finished device.
This is the only way to make sure that the licensee is paying correctly for multimode vs. single mode fees.
Intel and others never need to license Qualcomm technology to make a modem.
The device manufacturer pays he license at the end.
You can make your own chips until the cows come home. The guy that make the phone pays the license.
If you want to buy chips they will sell you chips Qualcomm will sell them, but you need a license.
IF they roll the licensing and the chips together would that make people happy?
It won't change the cost and it's not double dipping.
The license is for the use of the patents.
The cost of a chip is the resources that went into the uniques embodiment of the patents, silicon, NRE, etc.