Also... why the hell does Apple have to pay when they've integrated a chip that has probably also paid Ericsson.
A common misconception is that the broadband chipmakers have paid all the royalties already. In most cases, this is not done because then you could OVERPAY for features that you're not using.
E.g. today's broadband chips can handle almost any cellular protocol, plus GPS, WiFi, Bluetooth, you name it. If I build a remote data transmitting station, I only want to pay for base GSM, not CDMA, WCDMA, LTE and everything else.
More importantly, by keeping the licenses at a higher level, the inventor maintains a better defensive arsenal against companies that wish to sue over other IP.
Surely it is relevant though? If a patent is considered standard, then would Fair, Reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms not be equal for everyone?
FRAND does not mean the same rate as everyone else. It means similar opportunities must be presented for similar buyers.
Just like any purchase, rates depend on things like license quantity, length of contract, the buyer's credit rating, willingness to cross license, etc.
In some past FRAND cases, like with Motorola and Samsung patents, there had never been any license done without cross-licensing. So there was no historical cash base rate to give Apple.
How is wanting to take more from a hugely successful company than you do an average player at best non-discriminatory?
For decades, ETSI cellular FRAND technology has been licensed based on the wholesale price of the target device. This was done partly to encourage phone makers to come out with lower priced devices. It worked, too, and thus we have the huge worldwide infrastructure and market that newcomers like Apple have made billions of dollars from.
A phone that sells for $35 with a profit margin of just $5, only has to pay $1 of that in royalties. OTOH, a $400 phone making $200 in profit, pays more like $20+. Note btw, that Apple claims that Foxconn is the real iPhone maker, and thus often only pays royalties based on the ~$240 Apple pays Foxconn per unit. This means they pay less than others already.
--
This royalty basis is the essence of Apple's current dispute with Ericsson. Apple argues that royalties should be based on the smallest saleable patent-using component. In other words, the broadband chip.
While a couple of lower judges have used the "smallest saleable" concept to come up with royalties, the higher courts and the DOJ have said they do not want to make it a hard and fast rule, for multiple reasons.
First, consider that silicon chips are constantly dropping in price. Should the IP be valued less because a physical incarnation later costs less to make? Obviously not. An idea worth $10 is still worth $10 even if the chip later costs less to make in quantity.
Secondly, the courts / DOJ have noted that there are plenty of situations where even a tiny patent has a huge effect on saleability. E.g. consider if someone invented a ten cent chip that made a smartphone's battery last for two weeks. The value of that chip is hugely more than its cost or how much of the phone it physically makes up. The same concept goes for desirable features like LTE. (It's also the argument Apple used for its own rates.)
Moreover, the DOJ agreed long ago to this kind of royalty base:
And since then, Congressional inquiries and ITC decisions have also noted how common this practice is:
Still and all, Ericsson has filed suit to let a court decide the rates. Apple has always avoided previous such offers by Nokia and Motorola, probably because they fear that a jury might decide Apple owes more than they pay now.
TL;DR - Apple wants to pay LESS than the historical FRAND rate that everyone else has paid for decades. Ericsson is willing to let the courts set the rate.