Then again, perhaps the open source enthusiasts, or at least those who don't like a single vendor controlling the operating system used predominantly around the globe, should take heart in this: it is a good inducement, as a (1) massive show of incompetence, and (2) hostility towards users*, that should make people begin to look elsewhere. We should be telling all, right now, that based on these things, "you need to stop accepting de facto business applications that run only on Windows, and start demanding that they either go cross-platform, or that you'll find other options."
Of course, that would mean a bunch of start-ups rushing to produce something that runs...online, when really those who have had the "delight" of having IT push "cloud" based "solutions" on them know how pathetic they are in comparison to desktop applications and, more importantly, inflexible and problematic: loose that data connection (if it's available) and you're done for the day. (Silly caches in a browser that can't be relied upon aren't acceptable.) I doubt that will stop the enthusiasts from excitedly promoting "the cloud, the cloud!!!", however, no matter how pissed workers get having to use their craptactular under-featured shinyness.
There is also the threat of the lawyers gaming the silly judicial system for their clients' (and their own) interests; which happens to be engaged in the theoretical speculation and ignoring metaphysics, history, and intent such that basic tools of the sciences and trade, maths and programming, even biological facts, are being awarded patent
Now, *odd as it is for Microsoft to go Steve Jobs control-freak nuts and remove all the underlying code to prevent it, at least we now know that the company is hostile: working only in its own interests, and not careful of customer desire or need, IMHO. Explain how this is so, or seems so, and you start getting more business owners, loathe as they are to do so, to think about being strategic in choosing whom they should rely upon. At least the frustration that might arise in those wishing to be as productive--without hacks, add-ons, etc.--as they were action to action in the earlier versions is a means to begin describing all-of-the-above, and more: that for other players to come on the scene, these schemes and schemers (and the politicians that stand by or benefit from them) must be thwarted and punished bitterly. Hell, all those blinked out need be totally reimbursed with the expected value and income they can estimate they might have made, to surely cut the major players, who have become so wicked, down to a manageable size through the simple act of serving justice to all.
Are there no lawyers, judges, politicians, shakers and movers, willing to put all into rectifying an unjust situation, and remedying so many abuses? Who, as laywers who can do such seeing, will peer through formalities that protect from liabilities and punishment, and regard the real substance, and destroy pretensions by the abusers of this last decade-and-a-half of having acted within the law?