I do know people using F#. But if one wants innovations innovations take time to catch on. It is unreasonable to expect new invention -> product -> popular product, to happen quickly. Rather we can show Microsoft at all stages in the process. I was just showing new products that came out of their inventions.

As for SQL you are misreading my comment. I said LINQ for SQLServer: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/vstudio/bb397926.aspx

I'd love to read the filing. Normally with this sort of late filing you have to argue you were unaware of the infringing invention. So are they going to argue that Nortel was unaware of Google using their idea?

We have to see how this plays out.

Viewing this as a trust for phone-OSes is complex since it is so indirect. But let's assume that's makable. You still have my point (2) and (3) above. Android is much closer to being a monopoly than Apple + RIM + Microsoft.

Apple did say that. And the fix already existed at the time. They did precisely what you were advising.

If the customer is knowingly misrepresenting the problem yes that's fraud. I can't return my computer if I install a new version of Windows improperly.

Where is the evidence for anti-competitive collusion here. Google has a virtual monopoly in search. Weakening Google's position in search would enhance not diminish competition. Moreover some of the players here aren't in the search business.

If you want to make the case about phone OSes. Android again is becoming a virtual monopoly at many price points.

There are two issues:

a) Consortiums to compete
b) Patent trolling.

You seem to agree (a) isn't the problem. In the case of (b) the issue is more broad, and applies equally all patent trolls. I think just about everyone agrees the USA desperately needs patent reform.

Intel 80386 was a high end chip in 1985 used in very few machines at first. That's why OS/2 and windows both targeted the 80286.
The 80386SX the mainstream variant was introduced in 1988. The 386 was a bit better than the 68020 (1984) and a bit worse than the 68030 (1987). Macintosh IIx in 1988 was using the 68030.

So no, Apple was not behind in CPUs.

No that wasn't the case. It wasn't really about price. IBM was more expensive than the Apple 2 and the Mac generally. As time went on the Macs that were more expensive often had better components across the board the SCSI drives vs. IDE. They also had much larger margins. That combined with the fact that Windows was "good enough" (Windows 3.0 was May 1990) was what was really devastating for Apple.

Apple is over 70% of all phones sold over $500 and over 60% of all phones over $400. Back in the day Apple did not control the high end of the market this completely. This is just standard price point stratification which happens in lots of products.

How long do you think a major chemicals weapons plant could operate secretly? If you mean some small project to produce small quantities: those things are really dangerous to the people who make them and try and store them. Syria having had a large industrial program knows that.

The US did destroy about 90% of their stockpile. The remainder which we haven't destroyed are out of commission and at the Pueblo Chemical Depot in Colorado and Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky. Both of which are disposal facilities. We are doing it and have been for decades.

Syria is going to ship their stable stuff to Russia for destruction and if they have unstable / weird stuff everyone is going to have to figure out what to do.

The brutal dictator is in a state of declared war with Israel. People bomb each other during wars.

They were bombing anti-aircraft missiles in transit. They were in transit to Hezbollah. As far as I know those facts aren't in dispute.

I don't live in the EU. But I suspect that in the EU is it illegal to go into a store and with full knowledge and understanding that a problem is an easily resolvable software configuration issues claim there is a hardware defect. That's more or less the definition of fraud.