Where've you been? 8- and 12-core versions have been available for months. To me it seems more likely that the U.S. production facility was so slow that even meager demand couldn't be met. When will we see dual-processor Mac Pros?
At the time, what mattered for patenting is who invented first--and Apple was likely first. (Since the American Invents Act of 2013, what matters is who filed for the patent first.) Apple likely both invented and filed for the patent before Google (re)invented, but the patent may not have been awarded by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office until after Google (re)invented.
The jury clearly seems to have trouble rapping its collective brain around the fact that it's Samsung on trial for infringement. It's Samsung that produced infringing products without a license (and sold them), not Google. The software Google produced does not itself infringe, because the software alone is nothing without hardware on which to run it.
Yes. Apple has had this specific target for years, dating back at least as far as their acquisition of PA-Semi. By creating the best processors in the business, Apple not only maintains dominance in the mobile arena, they can also leverage the technology to get better pricing from Intel. Apple has used such a strategy repeatedly in the past to get better pricing on PowerPC and Intel chips, with the difference today being that Apple has far more control over the designs.
As I wrote, Geekbench is a good, relative indicator of performance for my computational needs and I believe my needs are rather common. My bread and butter isn't video, though, which is the area Apple has tailored the 2013 Mac Pro for. I'm much better off buying a dual-Xeon Linux system (for less money) that's 2-3X faster than the new Mac Pro and with more memory expansion capability. I believe Apple has turned away from general purpose computing because they can't compete...