No, they are selling cloud gaming services to developers. If they use the cloud the same way WOW does then the game will be online only. So you may get single player games that are online only. But it is up to the developer.

Doesn't matter because programmers don't read patents anyway. Software patents are ignored. The only finanical implications is less work for patent lawyers. The patent office rubber stamps these patents because going through the prior art would be impossible. (Every app published on the app stores is potential prior art. There are over 300,000 programmers producing new prior art every day)

They should just say. "Sorry we are not sure yet. Google Glass is still in Beta. We don't even know if this will be sold to the public. We will get back to you later"

Several exclusive rights typically attach to the holder of a copyright:
* to produce copies or reproductions of the work and to sell those copies
* to create derivative works (works that adapt the original work)

If the app allows you to download and save then it is making a copy.
If the app doesn't display the ads then it is making a derivative work.
Fair use may allow a person who owns a copy to make copies for backup. But that doesn't extend to people who don't own a copy.
Fair use may also allow an individual to block ads.(low chance on this) Microsoft blocking ads for you by default so they can sell more phones is not fair use.

Except he is innocent. So the Streisand effect is a good thing for him if it gets the word out that it wasn't him in the video.

The TOS is the only thing that would give them a license to distribute Youtube videos through an app. The default state in no right to use the content. Just because I have never red the GPL doesn't mean I can violate open source licensing. I can't just go into a farmers field and start taking food either.

They did not break a monopoly. Amazon was already loosing share to B&N prior to the Agency model.

Just because something is existing doesn't make it legal. ITunes is probably also illegal. That is why Apple is fighting this.

They raised prices. Anti Trust laws are about keeping prices low.

Apple may not have had a monopoly but the Publishers combined did. Apple is accused of creating a monopoly by forming a trust between the Publishers. At the time Apple also had an monopoly with the IPad. For several years they were the only tablet that people purchased.

It is not completely legal just because the agreements are written on different sheets of paper. That is moronic. They have a witness testifying about collusion. About meetings with Apple discussing what other publishers want.

Amazon "dominance" was totally a result of them converting their existing physical book customers into digital customers. They were doing this years before Apple even put out the IPad. B&N, and Kobo were also late. They were out there with only Sony as a competitor. So they had 90% share when it was them vrs Sony. Sony didn't have a huge website with millions of book sales. So of course Sony was clobbered. When Amazon main physical book rival B&N came out with the Nook their share went down. Then the Apple launched IBooks and prices went up on best sellers. Then their was the lawsuit. Then prices went down.

Amazon didn't lose share because of Apple. If they had Apple would have gained 40%. But instead B&N gained 20% and Apple, Sony, and Kobo split the rest. As the market grew other companies picked up customers. Nothing to do the price fixing Apple was involved in.

90% is not really a valid number. Amazon had 90% market share because they had no competition. B&N and Borders didn't even have an ereader for a several years. Apple came in 5 years too late. Amazon never had a true monopoly. Of course Amazon lost share once others entered the market. And while they lost share they didn't lose customers. There were still growing like hell converting their customers from physical to digital.

How about removeing power from the federal branch of goverment to state goverment.

It also matters in how the money is spent. Money given to a politician must be spent on his election. If every penny is spent then the only thing the politician gained was the salary of the office he will hold. It is bribery if the giver builds the politician a house. It is bribery if the money is used to pay blackmail to a mistress.

It is bribery if the money is not spent on campaigns. When a politician uses the money to buy a house, a car, vacations or clothes then it is bribery. It may also be bribery in other situations. But the above is a good bright line test.