It's interesting that you suggest "Samsung may jump in as well". Bruce Sewell recently confirmed to Bloomberg that it was Tim Cook, at a tech conference in Idaho, who prevailed upon Samsung scion Lee Jae Young (known as Jay Y. Lee in the West), to get the KFTC to ramp up a dormant investigation into Qualcomm royalties. That's the same Samsung billionaire, and only son of Samsung's chairman, who was convicted of bribing Korean officials, sentenced to 5 years in prison, and caused the impeachment of the Korean president, because of pro-Samsung corruption.
Your Freudian slip notwithstanding, of referring to the Apple/Samsung regulatory then litigation attacks against Qualcomm, as "Qualcomm v Apple", the modern abusive tactic of enlisting competition regulators in what's really commercial disputes between sophisticated companies, is an abuse of governmental power.
My personal opinion is that Bruce Sewell was shown the door after the Bloomberg interview was published, because he corroborated the conspiracy between Apple and Samsung to instigate regulatory action against Qualcomm, so follow-on litigation could be filed. His second blunder, that will likewise come back to haunt in Federal court, was disclosing that Apple's goal is to reduce Qualcomm's estimated $10-12 royalty on iPhones, to $4/device. (That's a lot more than 3% of the $18 modem price.)
