Trying to subvert a decision by the courts by going against the the spirit of it, but while technically following it somewhat doesn't work. Apple knew what it had to do, but it didn't do it. Instead it tried to weasel its way out and now it has been reprimanded. Do you seriously expect the judges to explicitly list every step that Apple needs to take in a large amount of detail?

I'd say do it, but just not in the USA.

While no fan of Microsoft or their products, in recent years Microsoft has enjoyed record profits and I don't think "Windows 7 and Office 2010 did nothing to excite tech user" from the article is exactly true either.

He already admitted to being paid by Microsoft.

You haven't quantified what "suggest" means either. Is that not a gut feeling too?

I don't see what you are referring to, Google hasn't used it's patents for anything except defensive reasons.

Mentioning Brian David Josephson, with his belief in telepathy and parapsychology, hardly makes it sound credible.

What makes Linux development work so well is the involvement of many companies and not just one. Making the code open source is a first step in getting more companies involved.

The article says an even greater amount of carbon offsets, not a "little extra".

If you don't attend the course you can not pass.

Very few are actually religious

Property rights and "intellectual property" rights aren't the same thing. That's why they have different names. It seems like you are confusing the two.

So what happens when someone arguing a popular view debates a charismatic person!

Microsoft has a near total monopoly (90%+) on the desktop and can leverage this to increase its browser usage.