They didn't forget. Nokia has a license from NTP so can't be included in this suit.
I think EISA is here to stay just because of its use in the desktop market. It is fast becoming the only standard for desktop components (there are now motherboards with no ISA). Ok, well the benefit of having a compact standard the same as the desktop standard is obvious. All the chips work the same, you don't need a new chip design or a bridge chip for the different standards. You just put the stuff in a different package and go.
Insert pre-emptive Hitler comment here.
I would add to your summary:
Writing Secure Code: Writing code that is robust and resistant to attack. Doing this right is neither easy nor obvious.
An unregistered Trademark is usually enforcable only within a relatively small geographic area. They were not marketting their brand nationally, in fact , their brand has nothing to do with search or web design, their brand is not registered, in short, it fails virtually all of the tests needed to enforce an unregistered trademark.
This truly feels like yet another attempt to get free cash from Microsoft. IMHO they have a better chance of getting that cash from Bing Cashback purchases then from the lawsuit...
Cobol is NOT conducive to literate programming. Yes, it uses 'english' names for common operations, but this is not what makes a program 'literate'. The data division with it's cryptic layout, level numbers to specify subdivisions, Sections with differing rules and syntax do not lead to literate programming.
The Procedure division allows for english-like statement "Move a to b." instead of "b=a;", however neither of these statements are any better at explaining to a human what we want a computer to do. It can be argued that Cobol is more clear to an English speaking non-programmer, a subset of 'human beings', and generally not the target audience of a computer program. It can also be argued that "b=a;" has more universal understanding among the subset of 'human beings' called 'developers' that make up the target audience.
I started with COBOL, I wrote COBOL code for many years (started programming in 68), and I can assure you, Knuth is NOT referring to language semantics in his statements.