So really the 'we only intent our patent portfolio to be defensive' claim applies only to cases where the other company has such a portfolio. And they have no trouble being the bully in cases where the other company can't fire any shots back at them.
This applies to Microsoft specifically, but also to other large corps. So trying to claim that 'Microsoft is just playing that game' and that I should "hate the game, not the player" is ridiculous. Microsoft will perpetuate the "game" whenever it will be financially advantageous for them to do so. They are not filing such patents to 'protect themselves from someone else that might file a similar patent, then turn around and sue them.' They are filing them to serve a dual-purpose. A 'sword' to defend and attack with.
My opinion is that focussing our hatred on M$ in this case is treating a symptom. Let's fix the patent system so that this kind of idiocy isn't possible or necessary.
There are lawsuits flying every which way over absurd things the patent office has granted patents for - so if you hold the patent for something ridiculous and widespread, you not only prevent someone else from getting it and suing you, but it's a bargaining chip when someone comes at you with another patent violation. They say "we'll sue you because we hold the patent on 'an electronic way to display text'" and you say "if you do that, we'll sue you because we hold a patent on 'a tactile alphanumeric input device.'" And so instead of a costly legal battle, you've won yourself a stalemate, with only the price of a few patent applications.
Not to say that this is an appropriate way for the system to function, and not that big companies shouldn't be lobbying to fix the patent system (I believe some of them are), but I feel like M$ is just playing the hardball they need to play to protect themselves.