Or rather, ownership of the concept of everything looking and behaving like an iPad. The tablets prior to the ipad were very, very different - and now a tablet suddenly have to look exactly like an iPad?

No need to say the same thing twice ;)

On a slightly more serious note: App selection is one of most important aspects on a smart phone today, and Windows Phone is nowhere near the quantity and quality of iPhone and Android in this area.

Logo was created in the 60s, turtles and all. It was popular on other systems as well in the early 80s, so it doesn't really seem to me that they did anything wrong here?

iPod touch was released sometime after the iPhone - at the time, they were selling iPod classics and Nanos. Phones sucked ( like my N95, or anything else Symbian/windows mobile based), and touch screen phones used styluses.

Apple licensed the technology, and paid in Apple stock. So not comparable

1. No. The cost difference is much, much higher. 65 USD/phone has been mentioned - about 2.5 billion USD just last quarter.
2. More importantly, the skills needed don't exist and you have a manufacturing ecosystem in the area - almost all the things in the iPhone are made there too, making logistics[1] much easier. Also, using iSlaves adds tremendous flexibility
3. Apple transformed the mobile market with the iPhone - just look at phones before and after. Protecting as much as possible of this - while taking advantage of other transformations being available RAND - is what they want. The lawsuits is about stopping companies copying Apple, not about getting a share like Microsoft is happy doing.

[1] Logistics is where Apple really makes their money. Few products, little shelf time, no inventory. The actual product is a premium product at a premium price, true - but that costs in build quality and support as well. By keeping few product lines, reusing the same components and being the masters of supply chain management their profits go from "OK" to "incredible". Just witness how much trouble others have in matching the iPad price.

BASF is the largest chemical company in the world - more than twice the size of DuPont. 2010 revenues were almost 64 billion €.

Actually, if you look at the trends in music sales since mp3/napster arrived I'd say that on a macro level you have a very good case that piracy decreases sales. Also, if you look at the sales of top albums now vs. 10-20 years ago they have decreased significantly.

Sure, you could argue that this is because Britney and the gangsta rap-act of the week aren't as compelling as the high quality music made in earlier decades - but most of the content then was junk as well. We just happen to remember the good ones.

This doesn't mean that the music industry has acted sanely - their legal tactics are dubious, some of the suggested cures (like SOPA, and others before it) are much worse than disease and their "damages" are insane. And it has taken them a decade to go kicking and screaming into the future, with streaming music like spotify. But none of this means that piracy is good, and that a lot of people have downloaded music they would have paid for otherwise - alongside at lot of music they wouldn't have given second look, much less their cash.

It also doesn't mean that there aren't many artists who have used to their advantage - e.g. to get publicity - but overall it looks like a net loss. A big one.

IPhone is pretty far away from being a monopoly... of the more than 1 billion cell phones sold in 2010, Apple sold less than 50 million.

Like everything else, there is a balance. Too much power to unions is a very bad thing, too little power gives an extremely one sided relationship. As for destructive power, unions are strong in Northern Europe and Scandinavia.... both of which are doing pretty well.