The claim you made originally was not just that there were patent threats: it's that those patent threats were taken seriously by the people building the desktop environments and that the major redesigns were motivated by the threats. You keep posting links to the first, none to the latter. And it's specifically the latter part that people doubt.
If this had actually happened like you claim, there would surely be some kind of actual evidence of the redesigns being motivated by patents. Links to email discussions, design documents, recordings of presentations, something. But you seem to have nothing, and are instead trying to boost the credibility of the stuff you invented by providing links to the part of the story that wasn't actually under doubt.
Even if there had been some kind of a secret motivation behind the designs, and the publicly claimed justifications were really just a parallell construction, it's completely implausible that this shadowy cabal could have mainted opsec for this long without something leaking to the public.
If this had actually happened like you claim, there would surely be some kind of actual evidence of the redesigns being motivated by patents. Links to email discussions, design documents, recordings of presentations, something. But you seem to have nothing, and are instead trying to boost the credibility of the stuff you invented by providing links to the part of the story that wasn't actually under doubt.
Even if there had been some kind of a secret motivation behind the designs, and the publicly claimed justifications were really just a parallell construction, it's completely implausible that this shadowy cabal could have mainted opsec for this long without something leaking to the public.