Nothing to do with the case at hand. Qualcomm, the market leader, paid what can only be called a bribe to Apple in exchange for Apple guarantee that they would not buy chips from qualcomm's competitor in any of their product, denying competition, and going against EU's law.
If you think a manufacturer should not be able to make its own hardware parts that's your opinion and you're entitled to have it, but it's a completly different issue.
Well it could be called extortion. Apple could well have initiated the conversation, or placed such financial pressure on Qualcomm in terms of price reductions that they considered this was the only financially stable way of giving them what they want. It's not like Qualcomm could bully Apple into much of anything. If push came to shove that would just result in a hostile takeover.
In the end Qualcomm failed with faulty lawyering, as there should have been a carveout for the EU, and none of this would have mattered.
Please note: I am not saying it was extortion, just that there is a case that needs to be made to rule that out since the players are not unsophisticated. I think it is ridiculous that a company as large and well-informed as Apple gets a total pass when they obviously benefited significantly from the deal (or they would not have made it). It also seems a bit myopic to see every large company with sector dominance as in a position of power and therefore as the aggressor. There should be codification for market-dominant consumers as well.
If you think a manufacturer should not be able to make its own hardware parts that's your opinion and you're entitled to have it, but it's a completly different issue.