Why is Apple not at fault for accepting Qualcomm &quot;bribes&quot;/kickbacks
<p>With regards to the following: 
<a href="https://www.ft.com/content/043c6bfe-0106-11e8-9650-9c0ad2d7c5b5" rel="nofollow noreferrer">EU hits Qualcomm with €997m fine for abusing its dominance</a></p>

<p>I have several questions about this piece of news:</p>

<ol>
<li>How is this different from a simple business deal, where a company could provide a cheaper alternative or subsidise the deal? </li>
<li>How come Apple are not at all at fault in the eyes of the EU for this? Surely this amounts to accepting a bribe or at least anti competitive behaviour by them? </li>
<li>How is this different from a company paying a provider to only use their service/product? Which I believe happens fairly regularly in many industries.</li>
</ol>

<p>Because Qualcomm has a monopoly in the market for cellular communication chips, and Apple has not. Qualcomm was acting in an anti-competitive way, excluding other sellers from that market. Apple didn't act in an anti-competitive way. Apple doesn't prevent anyone from selling cellular communication chips. </p>

<p>And you seem to misunderstand "bribe" and "kickback". If an Apple employee did a deal with some company, and instead of picking the best value company picked a less good one because it pays him money, that would be a "bribe" or "kickback". The point is that a deal would be made that benefits the employee and the other company at the expense of Apple, who would be getting less than they paid for. That is not the case if Qualcomm pays money to Apple itself or gives Apple a rebate. </p>

competition antitrust-law