You seem to like Nokia, They agree with Moto and not Apple. Qualcomm is another. and Blackberry. Companies like Verizon didn't support Apple so much as they were against injunctions altogether for misc. infringed IP.
Yet others that were reported to be "supporting Apple" like Altera, Cisco, CME Group, Garmin, Hewlett-Packard, Logitech, Nest Labs, NETGEAR, Newegg, Rackspace Hosting, Safeway, SAS Institute, Symantec, Wal-Mart etc actually had a broader agenda in advocating for reasonable patent damages as a whole and not just FRAND-pledged. Strictly speaking they aren't really in "Apple's corner". In some other cases they'd actually be against Apple's position on appropriate damages for infringement.
I realize that deep in your heart you want this to be a pure black and white issue with Google in a black hat and Apple in white so everyone knows who the good guys are all the time and in every instance. Well this ain't a Western and the hat colors might change from episode to episode. If you don't pay attention you don't catch on.
Do you have any official positions for all those companies you listed? Because I can find statements for the ones I listed.
Nokia doesn't agree with Motorola. Nokia and Ericsson are in the middle. They don't like injunctions but see them as an option when necessary (after negotiations have failed). Motorola and Samsung see injunctions as something that should be available in all circumstances. For example, Samsung looking for an iPhone 5 ban even before it was released and before any negotiations occurred between Samsung and Apple. Or Motorla asking for insane fees from MS and getting a fraction of their demands (extortion under threat of a ban). Motorola also subscribes to the "one bullet to kill" theory in that it only takes one infringed patent to get an injunction even if it's part of a much larger standard (that theory didn't work out for them so well in the Microsoft case).
Sorry, but it is black and white. People like you would try and convince others there's more at issue here by very carefully picking and choosing which aspects of a case you'd like to report (BTW, weren't you one of the people who claimed Motorola's demands were fair and in accordance with other licensing deals they made - look how that turned out for MS - they slaughtered Motorola in court).
Certain companies have been blatantly abusing patents (and are now paying/soon will be paying) for it. Certain companies have also been blatantly using others IP and will also soon pay for it. What I really don't get is what do people like you and KD get out of trying to twist the truth around when nobody really falls for it.