What's Sony got to do with the Blu-Ray license? If you don't know, don't speculate. The FLAA that grants the licenses also includes Hitachi, Matsushita, Pioneer, Philips, Samsung, Sharp, and Thomson. They or Sony certainly cannot deny the license to Microsoft
or any company as long as it follows the same conditions as other software player licensees such as Arcsoft, Corel or Nero. Therefore it was entirely Microsoft's decision not to include a Blu-Ray codec in Windows 7. Also, the cost of a BD-ROM2 codec license
is probably around a few bucks, not the $30 mentioned earlier: The license fee for a BD player (hardware) is about $4.50.
If the license fee for a codec is so cheap, that's reason enough to whine about a bad business and technological decision.
I don't see how working or not for Microsoft is relevant to assessing honestly this specific Blu-Ray situation, but FYI I did work for Microsoft for many years in Europe and Redmond, as a temp, as a vendor, as a full time employee and manager. This never prevented
me or other employees I knew from being objective, at least regarding Microsoft: Too many people that have been playing with too many registry keys and hacks for too many years unfortunately have subjective ideas about Windows and how easy to use Operating
Systems are supposed to be.
I am the first one to praise Windows 7, but only in as much as it is a fixed version of Vista, with less UAC and more of the features missing in Vista. It really is not a different product, its internal version number is actually 6.1, not 7. It should have
been called Vista R2, according to the current OS nomenclature at MS.