Article seems to me to be glossing over the main point of contention, which prompted the lawsuit and ITC ruling in the first place:

Is Qualcomm infringing on Broadcom's Patent(s)?

Because, if so, it follows that Broadcom would take all available steps to put a stop to said infingement, including petitioning the government to halt the importation of infringing products from overseas.

The author notes that the ITC's power to ban foreign-made, patent-infringing products was "never intended to substitute for domestic patent-infringement suits in federal courts between two American companies, which is the story here." True, but if it was your intellectual property that was being stolen, you would try every possible avenue to attempt to get the other company to stop.

I don't think it follows that, even while you are attempting to seek recourse in the US for your intellectual property being stolen, the offending company should be allowed to continue to ship in and sell infringing products, just because they were built overseas.

Rulings like this don't mean that we can't get pimp-ass cell phones, or that Qualcomm must stop making phones. They just have to compensate patent owners for using their registered intellectual property.

The author makes several points about the strength of patents, and how the USPTO needs to have different incentives and patent-approving methods. All well and good, but again, how is that relevant to this situation? The author seems to be insinuating that Broadcom's patent is weak, or that it's position is otherwise untenable, without coming straight out and saying it. To me, that sort of hidden agenda stinks of conflict-of-interest journalism.

It doesn't help that this article is almost completely devoid of any types of facts to help the reader determine whether there really is an infringement of intellectual property occurring in this situation.