Sure, while the WiMAX argument sounds a lot more convincing than Apple's pitiful claim that they were FORCED into the exclusivity, the EU and other regulators specifically cited Qualcomm's kick-back -- "the significant amounts paid by Qualcomm in exchange for exclusivity" -- in respect to LTE chipset sales as the basis of their decision.
Apple in this case is not a victim of Qualcomm's anti-trust/competition violation, but a colluder and should have been punished accordingly. I'm fairly sure however that, like the previous investigation in Korea and Taiwan, Qualcomm was not allowed to defend and counter Apple's claims, but I speculate it was in part their investigation centered around Qualcomm's baseband OEM licensing (or lack thereof) in violation of FRAND, of which Qualcomm was clearly guilty.
Apple in this case is not a victim of Qualcomm's anti-trust/competition violation, but a colluder and should have been punished accordingly. I'm fairly sure however that, like the previous investigation in Korea and Taiwan, Qualcomm was not allowed to defend and counter Apple's claims, but I speculate it was in part their investigation centered around Qualcomm's baseband OEM licensing (or lack thereof) in violation of FRAND, of which Qualcomm was clearly guilty.