the amount microsoft needs to pay is surely nothing compared to what they stand to gain by working within the current patent system/process/landscape.

It’s silly to characterize patent harassment as an additional cost of implementing DRM, because it’s also an additional cost of doing anything else. Implementing DRM doesn’t widen your exposure to frivolous patent infringement charges any more than developing any other kind of product or feature.

As for claiming that putting complex activation schemes for software is “pointless”, I think your mistake is thinking it’s supposed to solve the piracy problem which is wrong. It’s meant to prevent loss of profits from people – usually businesses – that would never consider right out pirating software but need that extra push to actually pay in some situations. For example:

1. A worker’s computer with Software X is replaced with a new one and the old machine goes to some other employee that doesn’t use Software X. The software is installed on the new machine with the legitimate assumption that the license is now used there and there’s no reason it will be used on the old computer. Later, the other employee discovers she needs to use Software X herself, and finds out it’s already on the machine so she starts to use it.

2. A new guy is coming and IT need to quickly set up a machine for him, so they use the software discs lying around with the full intention of buying additional licenses later. However with time it is forgotten as more important things come up, so the additional licenses are not bought eventually.

And so on. Also, the harder it gets to use unlicensed software, the easier it is to prove willful infringement in court.

I don’t know if it actually makes sense in the bottom line, but I certainly wouldn’t dismiss activation schemes as “pointless”.