Qualcomm Inc.\u2019s lawyers saw a chance to score some points in a government antitrust case against the chipmaker by making an example of rival Intel Corp. as a company accused of abusing its dominance of an industry. They were wrong. After an interrogation of Intel\u2019s chief strategy officer largely backfired this week, a Qualcomm attorney on Friday declined a judge\u2019s invitation to bring Aicha Evans back to the witness stand as a non-jury trial brought by the Federal Trade Commission moved into its fourth day of testimony. \u201cNot from us, your honor,\u201d Qualcomm lawyer Antony Ryan told U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh, prompting a cheer from Evans, which provoked widespread laughter in the San Jose, California, courtroom after one of the liveliest showdowns so far in the case. It also ended something of an ordeal for him. Testimony later Friday from Qualcomm Chief Executive Officer Steve Mollenkopf was decidedly more stolid, with a reference to shipment practices amid stalled royalty payments and a cross examination about the ethos of the San Diego-based company. No fireworks, cheers or laughter ensued. Evans, who formerly ran Intel\u2019s mobile phone chip unit, repeatedly turned Ryan\u2019s questions into opportunities to restate her company\u2019s opinion that Qualcomm unfairly used technology licensing and its leadership in smartphone components to lock out competition. Qualcomm Faces FTC Trial Threatening Smartphone Dominance Ryan frequently sought to corner Evans by citing piecemeal excerpts from her emails and pretrial testimony, a common tactic in trials to save time. Evans had none of it, asserting her right to read documents aloud in their entirety while insisting context was crucial. When Ryan tried to interrupt her, she ignored him and read on. Evans was born in Senegal, putting her in a very unusual category in the chip industry: a black female executive. Her mission at Intel was to gain market share in mobile phones to try to match the company\u2019s dominant hold of the personal computer processor industry. \u201cMr. Ryan, Mr. Ryan, you\u2019re going very fast. Easy,\u201d she told the attorney at one point. Earlier she\u2019d said: \u201cI\u2019m a French speaker, numbers are hard. I\u2019d ask you to please slow down." Intel, the world\u2019s second-largest chipmaker, holds about a 90 percent share in the lucrative market for computer server chips. In personal computer processors, it rakes in more than 80 percent of revenue. Its only remaining competitor, Advanced Micro Devices Inc., once accused Intel in a lawsuit of using its control of that market to force PC makers into remaining exclusive users of its products. The two sides settled the case with Intel paying AMD more than $1 billion in 2009. Qualcomm Dealt Another Setback Ahead of FTC Antitrust Trial Evans argued that Qualcomm had muscled Intel out of contracts with Apple Inc. by locking the iPhone maker into exclusive agreements. \u201cThey came back and told us we\u2019d have a chance in 2016, but in 2014 we\u2019d lost because of a pre-existing agreement Apple had with Qualcomm,\u2019\u2019 she said. \u201cWe were set back two years. It was a near-death experience.\u201d Mollenkopf has argued that the government has no evidence that its \u201cno license, no chips\u201d policy has hurt competition in the industry. Qualcomm asserts that Intel\u2019s current status as exclusive chip supplier for Apple proves that the industry is, in fact, healthy. Evans complemented Qualcomm but took another dig at the company that the FTC\u2019s lawyers will like. \u201cThey are excellent technical engineers,\u2019\u2019 she said. \u201cThat doesn\u2019t give them the God-given right to perform unfair business practices.\u201d Friday\u2019s session concluded after Mollenkopf\u2019s testimony, in which both sides tried to make progress with their central arguments. The CEO, like other Qualcomm representatives, acknowledged the company has a policy of not providing chips to phone makers who don\u2019t pay for its licensing. Its argument is that those license fees go into technology development that benefits the whole of the industry, not just Qualcomm. The government lawyers tried to build support for their case that Qualcomm willfully used its position in the marketplace to extract high patent licensing fees and force customers to stay exclusive to it. Qualcomm countered that its business model is a byproduct of the way the market developed and not part of a grand design to disadvantage would-be rivals - its leadership in technology thrust its patents and chips to the forefront of the industry and supply arrangements have been shaped by supply and demand. The chipmaker is unique in the industry in that it gets the majority of its profit from licensing patents it says underpin all modern phone systems. Handset makers pay it a percentage of the price of a phone regardless of whether they use its chips or not. The case is Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Inc., 17-cv-00220, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose).