I was going to try to just continue this via email, but I don't see your contact details. I don't have the industry background to know whether APS-C sensors are indeed "commoditized" but that sounds a bit spurious. Canon, Fuji, and Nikon make the best digital camera sensors in the world today, and I have not seen a single camera produced by a major player that uses one of the other player's sensors. They'd be insane to sell that advantage as a commodity part. In that environment, it makes a lot of sense for Panasonic and Olympus to push the development of their own supply of sensors.
As for whether there is nothing worthwhile in their smaller sensors, well, time will tell. Today, there is no MFT-competitor (Sony, Samsung) lens with Aperture below F2.8. That's pretty half-hearted competition.
The Four Thirds format - i.e. traditional SLRs with smaller sensors was a failure until they pivoted into Micro Four Thirds (EVIL cameras, "electronic viewfinder interchangeable lens"). The cost advantages of four thirds sensors never materialized, and the smaller sensor size is only a marginal advantage when it comes to integrating into smaller devices.
This is evidenced by the fact that a mere year after the launch of the first Micro Four Thirds cameras, Sony has already hit the market with the same concept, but they're doing it with a larger APS-C sensor (and also no bigger than the E-PX and GF-X series of Micro Four Thirds cameras).
Olympus and Panasonic rightly deserve the credit for inventing the entire concept of EVIL and bringing it to market, but IMHO it has little to do with the Four Thirds format. That whole thing was a bad idea to begin with. APS-C sensors are widely available and commoditized, so there are no cost advantages, and there is not necessarily a significant technical advantage either.