Exactly: not complying, getting dragged to court, and paying is an option. You're not obligated to open the source, you can just suffer the consequences of copyright violation instead.

Ahh, I'm naive am I, just because I disagree with you?

Or rather I understand that the actions of a lower level employee or related third party does not necessarily equate to corporate policy, and the former can be considered unwilfull distribution, while the latter can be considered wilfull.

You are wrong, in the case of unwilfull infringement, positive action to cease infringement is enough - you are not obligated to release the code, and you are not bound by the licence. The copyright holder can still persue damages for prior infringement, but thats it.

What do you want MS to do? Scour the interwebs for every licensed software to compare it with what Microsoft's coders produce?

No, you're not automatically obligated to do any such thing. What happens is that you may be infringing on the copyrights on the GPL'd code, so it's up to the copyright holders to decide what to do: ignore it, negotiate a (presumably non-GPL) license agreement with you, or take you to court. And if the latter, the judge will decide what the punishment should be--most likely it'll be "stop distributing the software and pay the copyright holder $$$$$". It's unlikely that the punishment would be "publish the source code to your app that used GPLed code."

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

        a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
        b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
        c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

Well, first they have to invent it, which means it has to be new and nonobvious - so no patenting "filing a patent" or "earning money". And if they do invent something, they have to disclose it to the world and teach us all how to do it. And if they've really done something new and nonobvious and it's actually valuable and innovative, why shouldn't they have a limited period to exploit that invention? Particularly when, by it's very definition, it's limited, and 20 years later, everyone gets to do this new, nonobvious, and valuable method?

I think most of the people who complain about the patent system, whether they realize it or not, are primarily concerned about the "new and nonobvious" part, rather than subject matter eligibility. We don't like it when someone gets a patent on a method of swinging on a swing, or investing in a hedge fund, or tickling a cat. But that's because those have either been done before, or are so freaking obvious that it's removing something from the public domain if you grant a patent on them... and that's a question of novelty and obviousness, not subject matter.

And what if the big corporations go on patenting sprees and start patenting anything imaginable? Just like all patenting has come down to.

Wow, I'm old. I never really stopped and thought about just how horrid modern class rooms have become, I certainly never pictured some twit droning on from a canned Power Point.

  On the upside you'll be properly prepared for any number of meetings.

I'm not joking guys. We really planned on making our money on patenting our business model. We figured the big corporate bastards have made it impossible for tiny businesses like ours to make money and stay in business any other way so we'd patent our business model to protect ourselves from the giant behemoths. What will happen if you can't patent a business model is the behemoths who were in the same niche but slightly less profitable will look over and see you making money hand over fist and decide to copy your homework. What can you do? You're tiny. You're toast! But wait! I have a business model patent! You have to *buy* me! That means I get one last pay-check before you cut me loose!

They take that away and now we're defenseless in front of gigantic corporations who have the resources to just wholesale copy our model.