Actively enforcing patents like these hurts Microsoft's relationship with developers, hardware manufacturers, the open source community etc.
On the other side, there is likely another group of people in MS saying "hey guys, if we give up this massive guaranteed cash flow we could receive an impossible-to-predict-or-measure amount of goodwill from ill-defined groups of hypothetical people who might all just hate us anyway no matter what we do, and even if it does make them like us more we're not sure if it will really make a difference in the long run."
Now, I would be squarely in the latter group, because I think it's the right thing to do and is consistent with the kind of company that MS appears to be trying to transform itself into, but I've gotta think that that's a very tough case to argue to anyone who is actually in a position to make that call and is therefore held responsible for the outcome. I would try to make a much more convincing argument than the strawman I presented, but since it's all about intangibles, someone with an opposing viewpoint could probably make just as convincing of a case by framing my intangibles as that strawman, and there's not a whole lot anyone could say to refute it.
It's a local maximum seen throughout the industry- I think there is a growing realization outside of the usual niches (open source advocates, HN readers, etc.) that software patents are doing more harm than good, but in the individual isolated cases it still comes down to people arguing internally that an organization should give up a guaranteed revenue stream in exchange for theoretical goodwill that may or may not actually benefit the company in any tangible way. Lots of people hate stupid patents but patent holders would rather change the system for everyone, than go out on a limb and make a sacrifice like that with no guarantee that their competitors would follow suit. I don't envy anyone trying to fight the good fight in that environment.
This is exactly what I mean. Them opening up the patents wouldn't change your bias against their products (justified or otherwise isn't relevant) like you just described, making it a business decision with very, very limited gains and billions in losses.
By bias I meant that you flat out said that Windows and a few other MS products aren't worth the money and don't understand why anybody would use it. Now sure, it's possible that after careful consideration you decided in a completely unbiased manner that the products you listed aren't worth their cost under any circumstances but I'm sure you'll agree how that might sound incredibly biased to a casual observer.
edit: well except sharepoint like you said. That thing is just bad and I've no problem admitting to a bias against it.
They're clearly trying to change their ways, but every now and then (i.e. patent crap) some of the old regime shines through. It shows that the internal mentality hasn't changed as much as they like to put on.
They need to walk the walk, which they're not doing. :(