Your argument is valid in the sense that Microsoft gotten their profits from a dominant market position (the Windows desktop, and Office) where they've used business tactics for which they've been convicted, and have entered various other markets using the profits from said position which are not, or are hardly, profitable. Examples include Zune, WM, Xbox.

For Intel similar. Convicted monopolist who is putting R&D in different projects, and selling different hardware than x86-32 chips. Itanium, x86-64, Atom, WiFi, and so on, and so on. However it is inherent to tech industry because the market changes so fast. It also questionable which corporation is 'more evil' which values influence each of our views, knowingly or not. And this is where the equation doesn't hold much water anymore...

1) Because in a Capitalist system we welcome competition on hardware platforms; e.g. ARM in desktop/workstations/servers/netbooks/smartphones and so on and Intel on smartphones/GPUs/tablets/GPS and so on.

2) Because a lot of MeeGo code is platform agnostic. Since it is written in languages such as C and C++ it is portable to other platforms than x86-32. Debian, for example, also uses code by Intel in say Linux kernel or MeeGo packages even though Intel is a convicted monopolist. They also have various ports of Debian; even non-x86-32 ones, and even non-Linux ones.

3) Intel is different. Intel is primarily a hardware company, and if you look at the past, that type of company is often open source friendly while corporations which are (proprietary) software companies are not. Intel play by the rules of open source in this market, and they never played dirty in this sector (unlike Microsoft). They've build up credit with their Linux kernel development. Microsoft has not build up credibility with open source development. On the contrary; the Halloween documents have received additional addendum due to the SCO debacle. Microsoft had several chances for building up credibility e.g. with Mono, and screwed it with exclusive deals (where Novell received a lot of money from Microsoft... sounds familiar?) but they refrain from official statements which can be used legally so they can use their patent arsenal once more, when time is right. Qt and MySQL have safety mechanisms build in; Nokia and Sun still bought them. The Office debacle also shows what kind of control freaks they still are. Which shouldn't surprise anyone when the CEO is not a techie (marketing or sth) and someone who was with Microsoft from the first hour. In short, Microsoft's core business competes with a lot of corporations including some assets from Nokia which are technical advanced such as Qt, and Symbian. Intel? They primarily compete with AMD, IBM, ARM. Intel is also not a competitor of Nokia. Microsoft, Apple, Google, et al. are. So what you asserted about Intel is drawing attention away from Microsoft. What you say has nothing to do with the threat from Microsoft and their shady business tactics (brief analysis here) which should not be forgotten. People recognize factors from previous cases, and share their observations. You can see some previous deals Microsoft had with 'strategic' mobile partners and that is actually this very market segment only.

Hardcore Nokia fans like anything Nokia does. This is inherent to being a fan. Take for example an Apple fan. If he would question or criticize an aspect of Apple, he'd not be seen as a fan anymore. Instead, I see rather many sceptics and critics here, as well as open source purists. Which can actually be a huge pain in the arse for a corporation.