這是專利的權利耗盡原則，專利權人取得權利金後，就沒有權利再做其他主張。而買家購買了專利物品，其售價也包含了權利金，所以專利權人也不能再做任何主張，買家可隨意再販售，或組裝成其他產品而販售，都不關專利權人的事。
所以，品牌廠商買了高通的晶片，應該就不用再付它權利金，而如果其代工廠商買了高通的晶片，那麼品牌廠商也就更不需要支付高通權利金才對。而品牌廠商或晶片廠商要使用或製造自己的晶片，因為高通的專利大部分是標準關鍵專利，想要符合國際標準就無法迴避，所以就要付高通權利金（須是公平合理無歧視的費率）。而且，品牌廠商或代工廠商其中一個人支付了權利金，高通就不能對另一邊收取權利金，不然就是重複收費。
（這邊以前有人使用切割晶片（組）使用範圍的專利授權契約，甚至區分出貨地區，來分別對於供應鏈的上下游收取專利權利金，類似微軟作業系統內附的新細明體與標楷體字型，僅供用戶非商業的顯示與列印使用，如果要做商業應用，例如Youtuber製作影片使用該等字型播放獲利，就要另付字型廠商授權金。但以美國聯邦最高法院近期的判例而言，這些都是違反前開專利權利耗盡原則的。）
（Apple and its four contract manufacturers say that "Lexmark forbids this double-dipping."
The doctrine of patent exhaustion, which the Supreme Court clarified, upheld and reinforced in Lexmark, is fundamentally irreconcilable with the notion of a company selling chipsets and collecting patent license fees from the customers buying its chips. But Qualcomm appears to have believed for a long time that it would get away with it. One, because no one would dare challenge it. Two, by virtue of three structural elements that the summary judgment motion addresses:
"Qualcomm divides the chipset sales and software license across two agreements"--one for the purchase of the chipsets and another one, named Master Software Agreement, for the software license.
Foreign sales (such as to Asia-based contract manufactures) don't help as Lexmark clear stated that "[a]n authorized sale outside the United States, just as one within the United States, exhausts all rights under the Patent Act."
The motion labels as "corporate shell games" a structure under which different Qualcomm entities sell certain products and technically own certain patents. More than six years ago I already reported and commented on a related restructuring.
The motion invites Judge Gonzalo Curiel to take a Lexmark attitude and focus on a simple commercial question: are we talking about authorized chipset sales or not? If authorized, there's exhaustion; if Qualcomm wants to argue that exhaustion doesn't kick in, it has to show that something was unauthorized about the sale.）
現在，高通是統一要求高額權利金，然後對於其中使用它所生產晶片的廠商，再視其採購額進行減免權利金。這樣會違反公平交易法與上述的權利耗盡原則嗎？
（Qualcomm's business model is basically like this:
Customers have to accept an out-of-this-world royalty rate in order to be able to buy Qualcomm's chips.
Those who don't want to buy Qualcomm's chips must still pay patent license fees and will sooner or later be "persuaded" to enter into exclusivity arrangements under which their total cost (the sum of chip supplies and patent royalties) is reduced (but apparently still very high).）
