Apple continues to grow their sales and Apple continues to pull in more profit than any other manufacturer (and only one other manufacturer is even close - all others are MILES AND MILES behind). Despite their market share being watered down due to cheap, inferior, "smartphones" that are really just feature phones running Android. I mean, really, for anyone using a top end smartphone, would you ever use, as your regular phone, one of the cheap options that are out there watering down the market share numbers? Do you seriously even vaguely put them in the same category as an iPhone or Galaxy S4 or HTC One?

I don't think Apple really cares about losing the bottom end of the market to subpar phones and I find it immensely amusing that people still think their loss of market share despite increasing sales is of any concern to them. If you think Apple cares about losing to a market in which they aren't even competing, then you're not paying attention.

Or, to put it in a car analogy so people understand, do you think that BMW and Audi care about $15k and less cars being sold? Protip: No. No they do not.

As a Safari user, where's my cheque?

Oh. That's right. My privacy was invaded but governments are going to get the money.

That seems fair. ...

Did you even read the summary? Here - let me make it easy for you:

Did you get that? They didn't provide more detail because they are legally not allowed to beyond a range of 1000. If they could provide more detail, they would.

In fact, they are filing an amicus brief in the efforts of gaining permission to disclose numbers in greater detail.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/11/05/apple-court-filing-asks-for-transparency-on-government-user-information-requests

Oh, and the list of companies fighting for permission to provide greater detail? Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, Facebook and LinkedIn. Notice Google, who you claim publishes the precise number of NSL requests, is on that list.

Let's have a look at Google's transparency report for the US:

http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/US/

Oh. Look at that - Google does not provide precise numbers of NSL, as you claim.

It's simple - the US makes it illegal for companies to disclose in any detail greater than units of 1000 how many requests for information they receive. Thus the numbers for the US are, shockingly, in units of 1000. For Apple and Google.

That's not quite accurate.

Samsung did some really good technical R&D work. The industry's standards body was establishing an industry standard and asked companies to suggest ideas for inclusion in this standard. Samsung, along with other companies, offered their technology into this industry standards process, all with the promise of offering their patents under FRAND terms. The standard was established.

The patents didn't become a Standards Essential Patent because everyone used it. It became SEP because Samsung offered it for use in the industry standard technology _AND THEN_ everyone used it.

The most common misconception on Slashdot is that Samsung is being punished for making a popular patent that became an industry standard. It is very important to understand that this is not the case. They _offered_ their patents up for inclusion in a standards setting process and everyone uses those patents now because they were accepted into the technology. They are popular patents _because_ they were included into the standards essential technology.

The rest of your post, however, is spot-on.

I know it's popular to imply that FRAND patents have no value but they have enormous value - they create a consistent, long term revenue stream since any company involved in the industry almost certainly will make use of that industry standard technology and thus will license the patent.

That enormous value is different from non-FRAND patents which have their value in being able to selectively license the patents or not, as you choose, and to license for whatever rate you and the other party can agree upon. That might result in people designing around your patent and you getting nothing at all or it might result in you earning a massive payday or prevent competitors from copying you.

FRAND and non-FRAND patents both have tremendous value but their value is different. When a company elects to offer their patent to a standards body for inclusion in a Standards Essential technology, they are electing to grain the long term, consistent licensing fees from a large number of companies licensing the patent. And that's incredibly valuable.

And "Fair and Reasonable" hasn't been difficult to interpret until Motorola and Samsung decided to selectively target companies (primarily Apple but also Microsoft and some others). If everyone abides by their FRAND promises, there is no problem. It's only a problem when a few start to break their FRAND promises.

Never abused SEP patents covered by FRAND promises. No. They haven't.

"We agree to stop abusing SEP patents for five years. And then, once those five years have passed, we will return to abusing them as we have which lead us to this point."

How about Samsung stop abusing SEP patents and honour their FRAND promises. Period.

They're offer appears nice, on the face of things, but it is hollow in the long run. The EU response should be simple - you've broken your FRAND promises and abused your SEP patents. You are fined an enormous amount and if it happens again, you will be fined an enormous amount again until you understand that FRAND promises are vital to the industry's ability to grow and develop and breaking those promises undermines the entire foundation of Standards Essential Patents. Stop abusing them - drop every single SEP-based lawsuit against every manufacturer and do not launch another lawsuit seeking damages nor injunctions for SEP patents ever again - or be fined. Period.

So long as manufacturers can wield SEP patents that are covered by FRAND promises as a weapon, there's serious damage being done to the industry. If you want to use your patent as a weapon against your fellow manufacturers, don't offer them up to a standards body for inclusion in an industry standard and don't promise to license them under FRAND terms. You are under no obligation to do so. This situation isn't forced upon you. There are reasons companies want their patents in an industry standard, even with the FRAND limitations, and there are reasons companies want to keep patents close to their chest. Pick one. You can't have both. Attempting to have both is an abuse of SEP patents and a breach of FRAND promises.

Apple paid more in corporate taxes to the American government than any other company (iirc, they cut the US Treasury a check for $6 BILLION).

Sorry to ruin your rant with facts...

Because, years ago, it used to be a great resource to learn about various diverse tech topics and some of us hope that it might, one day, return to that (all the while knowing those days are gone, gone, gone...).

You clearly haven't seen the watch if you think it's a fashion item. It would have been ugly had it come out in the mid-90's. In 2013, it's downright embarrassing. There's nothing, what-so-ever fashionable about the Samsung Gear. And, for the love of gawd, please don't compare it to a Rolex which actually is a fashionable piece of jewelry.

Who is this guy? I'd like to get some out of court settlement funds.

Because now it's about Apple and the iPhone and that generates page views and drives advertising. Now it's a real story where, before, it wasn't.

I'm guessing you already knew the answer but I'm stating it to make it official.