The thing I found after reading it, in regards to your list of criticisms - is that for the last two, Wolfram spent what felt like every other page (it wasn't literally that, but it was very, very often) expounding upon how the material wasn't new, and that he wasn't being original with it, and as far as credit is concerned - did any of these people bother to go to the back of the book and look at the HUGE pile of "footnotes" (they are printed much smaller, because there are so damn many that to print them at the same size would mean to print at least one or two more books the same size as the main text!).

I honestly tend to wonder if the people who are complaining about the book actually bothered to read it in its entirety, and understand the information and ideas being conveyed? So far, I'm not convinced they have, but I'm willing to change my mind if someone can point to a review or argument against it that holds up. The only one I've seen espoused by anyone (and was mentioned by a commenter here) is that the book doesn't actually do any "science" - but if you read the book, you would understand that this is an impossibility based on the premise of the work.