The initial claim was "statement about openness makes Microsoft an outlier". My counterclaim was "statement is meaningless". Why am I saying that? Because Microsoft is a business, not a person. Persons have souls and hence attributes like "openness" can apply to persons. Businesses are profit-maximizing automatons. They do not have souls. What does it mean for an automaton to be "open" to anything? Nothing, it doesn't make sense at a surface-level. Upon a deeper analysis it gives me pause that it blandly contradicts what their incentives obviously are, namely to win a zero-sum game that they're playing against a union.
The interpretation whereby they're communicating in bad faith is as good or better than the interpretation whereby you can take them at their word when they talk about openness. There is no way to know which of two contradictory interpretations is the truth. Hence the information content is zero (my initial claim).