So why not blame the "obnoxious people" in this case, too? It's like the patent system abusers (which perhaps not by coincidence, Microsoft is one, too) excuse: "don't hate the player, hate the game". Yeah, right. Nobody held a gun to their head to do this. It was a premeditated action by Microsoft.

You are correct that Microsoft would deserve some of the blame, if there is to be blame. However, user pessimizer put it very well:

> Microsoft has no obligation to you. Your judicial system does.

In any case, there is no "hating the game" here. The fault -- if one has a problem with this action -- is not with "the system", but with a very specific player: the federal judge who issued the order. (I don't feel like going through the trouble of finding his/her name, but I doubt it would be difficult.)

Independent of the ethics of this particular case, I don't think your argument makes sense: The filing was a necessary, while not sufficient, condition for this restraining order, so you can't deny responsibility by denying agency.

> Good courts do not comply.

Problem is, there is no good court. It's always vary case by case. Is the Supreme Court good court? It did rule in favor of gay married couples entitled to federal benefits but not so on some other issues. Laws are meant to be interpreted differently and handled differently by different judges at different time.

What you (and I and everyone is doing) is expressing our own opinion of how the complaint should be handle based on our interpretation of the law, responsibility, and society.

Exactly. Microsoft has no obligation to you. Your judicial system does. Microsoft might even be doing a good deed here, but the courts shouldn't have let them.