That's an interesting piece of fantasy. Patents are by definition a legal monopoly involving the subject inventions. Only SEPs carry FRAND obligations. The SSO's don't define FRAND. Industry norms and practices, evidenced by arms length bilateral negotiations between sophisticated corporations, relying upon their own engineering and legal counsel, do.
In the mobile device industry, QTL has 30 years of those commercial dealings to evidence business custom and usage. Nokia, Ericsson, Samsung, Siemens, InterDigital, and all the other significant SEP holders have always done things the same way. It was the industry as a whole, not QTL, who decided that consolidating royalties at the device level, was the most efficient and fair way to pass that cost on to consumers, and avoid multi-level agreements, and incessant litigation.
Now comes Apple 10 years ago, new to the mobile device business, but the most successful in marketing those products utilizing the technology of others. They amassed $250 billion in cash, and built 2/3 of their business, on the smartphone, extracting 91% of all profits in the entire supply chain, in the process.
But that's not enough for them. They want to add another couple of points to their margins, and slow the technological trajectory, to extend their ability to overcharge consumers. They don't like the competition QTL and QCT enable. Just look at their declining appeal in China. That's the canary in the coal mine.
Not too long ago, the EU considered inserting itself in the global royalty debate, but after years of investigation, Nellie Kroes declined to file a Statement Of Objections against Qualcomm, finding no regulatory basis to do so. Fast forward to a couple of years ago, the NDRC in China, using an outlier and parochial view of competition, imposed a lower local SEP-only royalty for domestic sales. Even that lawless kleptocracy declined to impose modem-level royalties on QTL. Then corrupt Korean regulators, bribed by Samsung to the point of the eventual resignation and prosecution of their president, decided to hand Samsung and Apple a first of its kind ruling. That's on appeal, and will be for years to come. Apple then went to the FTC, and in a 2 to 1 decision right before Trump's inauguration, with the now acting commissioner vehemently dissenting, bought into Apple's self-serving theory, and filed a complaint against QTL. That complaint gave Apple the cover to attack 30 years of custom and usage, and try to blow up the status quo. That FTC action will fail, and Apple's will, as well.
Only 10% of QTL's SEPs are practiced at the modem level. How can modem-level royalty pricing account for the other 90%? And what about the thousands of commercially important, non-SEP patents that are currently offered in the same basket to device manufacturers? They carry no FRAND licensing requirements, and if separated from the basket, will require additional license, to avoid litigation and ITC exclusion risks.
It is hubris and greed on the part of Apple, that has created this mess. And by pressuring the long licensed contract manufacturers to hold back royalties owed under those long standing agreements, it is Apple who has poked the nose of the bear. It will not end well for them. Nokia was once in their position, and might as well be back to manufacturing rubber boots again, after also overplaying their hand.
