these actions harmed competition and innovation in the markets for CDMA and premium LTE modem chipsets by reducing competitors' incentives to innovate or invest in research and development. Furthermore, Qualcomm used its dominance of these markets to extract supracompetitive licensing fees from its customers. The court ultimately did not find Qualcomm liable for engaging in anti-competitive behavior because it found that the FTC had failed to prove that Qualcomm's conduct caused any harm or injury to consumers or competition. The court held that since there were other competitors who were able to compete with Qualcomm despite their practices, this was evidence enough that their activities had no anti-competitive effects on the market as a whole. However, this does not mean that what Qualcomm was doing was necessarily legal or ethical; rather it just means that under U.S antitrust law at the time they could not be found guilty of breaking any laws related to monopolization and anticompetition due to lack of sufficient proof on behalf of the FTC regarding consumer harm resulting from their actions. Although Qualcomm may have been compliant with U.S antitrust law when evaluated on an individual basis given certain facts at hand during litigation proceedings between them and FTC, it is still possible for them (or any company)to engage in unethical business practices which can lead towards creating a monopoly over certain industries through questionable tactics such as predatory pricing or exclusionary contracts even if they are technically compliant with current legislation set forth by respective countries’ governments