What lost time is there for a volunteer on an FOSS project? The courts do NOT award lost time for responding to the lawsuit, but they might award it for the actual takedown notice, assuming you can show damages
You are assuming a "volunteer" is not paid. In many cases, it is a false assumption.
What are the SI units for that?
Americans (mostly) don't use SI units. But what is the SI unit to bone damage in a broken leg? What is the SI unit for autism? What is the SI unit that measures impact of an infection on the organism? All these cases are quite easy to quantify.
Maybe. That might depend on how it is advertised. In any case, Qualcomm isn't the one advertising this case, so there is no claim for libel.
So I hire an assassin. The assassin commits a crime, and I'm not responsible for inciting and paying for the execution of the crime? Wow.
How are they depriving you of your IP? They're only preventing you from distributing it, unless github was your only copy of it.
Many many tools rely on automated checkout of libraries and components (under FLOSS licensing) from repositories. Having a base library or something like that unaccessible based on false pretext breaks those tools. This may translate on commercial releases that can't be done because further manual integration needs to be done. If I maintain or contribute to one of those tools, and my employer cannot deploy the latest bugfix or our platform because some monkey decided to file a DMCA, I'd bet they'll be having a bad time. And yes, again - this is quite common; OSS maintainers that are paid for what they do and integrate that work into the employer's product line. The notion that a project volunteer is a poor nerd in a basement, while romantic - is generically wrong. They exist, but they are not the majority.
As far as criminal charges go - only a prosecutor can seek those, and to date none has done so over a DMCA claim.
A prosecuter is necessary for a public crime. And some crimes are semi-public (they require a lawyer to file the complaint).
If you file a DMCA counter-notice you are potentially inviting a lawsuit.
Crossing the road is also dangerous.
You stand nothing to gain other than the right to continue distributing the work in question, and a LOT to lose
Or not. You assume the system is rigged "for the big guys". I don't. In Qualcomm's case, any doubts about licensing of their driver/firmware code would have direct impact on sales. Pushing this to court while blatantly wrong would cause damage to the existing business. Qualcomm is not SCO; its not a patent troll trying to make a quick buck. As an example, I've done consulting on embedding systems for small network appliances. One of the criterias I use for component/platform selection was how "untainted" the driver is. Does the manufacturer provide a OSS-licensed reference driver? Is it known to push back or discontinue existing drivers? Are the drivers actual working drivers, or a wrapped blob? Is the licensing clear? Does it require an NDA? etc. etc. Given the rising popularity of android and linux systems, and the fact that many other companies also factor in these elements when choosing provider (not only price or funcionality), I'd be surprised if they try to move this forward.
For somebody not making money off of the distribution, it is a big risk to take.
Again, you assume its a guy in a basement. More often than not (at least for code that is actually useful), its not the case.