I honestly don't know how to reply to that kind of argument, in that it feels like the evidence both overwhelming and widely available that Microsoft has, in fact, provided innovation. Look at the sheer number of patents the company holds; we can debate patent law until the end of days, but in the meantime, it is worth looking at the things that Microsoft brought to market. And then look at Microsoft Research, which produces literally thousands of peer-reviewed academic papers every year, dealing with numerous advancements in technology.
Ford is an interesting example. Arguably, without Ford's advancements in manufacturing, automation, and mass industrialization, we don't get the modern car, which unquestionably has made nuclear power possible. In a very Civilization way, you can't get to nuclear power without modern transportation.
So what you seem to be suggesting is a counterfactual world where some other software (let's say Apples, for argument's sake) rose to prominence instead of Microsoft. It is possible that they might also have done an amazing job of putting a PC on every desk. But we have no way of knowing that and what we do know, in the reality in which we currently live, that Microsoft did an excellent job of pushing computing out of the lab and into the home.
And there seems to me to be decent evidence that we'll continue to make those sort of innovations that push technology forward. While you're welcome to call me "silly", I think saying that Microsoft has introduced absolutely no advancements to the marketplace is silly. So maybe we simply can't come to a place of agreement because we're not working from the same set of facts?