How is that relevant here? The notional problem consists of Apple Inc. selling an iPhone and then paying a royalty on the trade dress to Delawapple Inc. There is no supply chain involved, so it doesn't matter if the supply chain is unaffected.
The proposal above is that California should get to assess taxes against Apple based on Apple's revenue from California. And they do. That's what a sales tax is.
As discussed in other comments, the notional problem doesn't actually exist. The article was simply wrong on the Delaware Loophole in general; it still works in a handful of small states but it hasn't worked in any respectably sized state for longer than most people on HN have been alive.
Apple wouldn't get a California deduction for its "payment" of a "royalty" to Delawapple for an iPhone sold in California. It would get assessed a tax on the income it makes selling the iPhone to a buyer.
Note also: sales tax is a tax owed by the buyer of a good, not the seller. It is simply collected by the seller because it is more efficient for the seller to handle sales tax remittances than for each of their customers to do so. It's less overall work, it's easier to audit, and the seller can simply send the collected amounts in with their other periodic tax payments.
Taxing on point of sale is very useful if you want to capture externalities, but it’s got minimal effect on the supply chain.