Patents don't guarantee complete control over an invention. They don't necessarily even guarantee at which rate the inventor will be paid. They do guarantee that they'll be paid.

Not quite.

A patent provides the legal right to mount a credible defense of the patent. These days, a patent isn't even taken to certify that an invention was patentable (only that, by perverse logic, it's been patented).

The pragmatic reality is that a patent buys you the ability to transfer ~$1m from your opponent to his lawyers (and likewise yourself), this being about the running rate for a patent court case, with a possible payout from one side or the other at the conclusion. Generally, the "safe route" is to seek patent fees in the range of $10k - $100k (much higher and a joint defense or challenge becomes possible). Trying to mount a "bet the company" battle against Microsoft would be interesting, but unless the Eola has revenues sufficient to support the effort, ultimately futile. A payoff is more likely. Most interesting would be sale of the patent to a core foe of Microsoft, likely IBM or Sun. I see Sun as the company more likely to be able and willing to put up a blocking challenge to Microsoft, though participation in standards organizations may constrain even Sun. IBM has too many mutual relationships with MSFT to be a credible adversary, though the patent would be a nice leg up, and would certainly be tapped for a substantial revenue transfer.

As for uniform licensing: a patent provides the right to control use of a technology. That control might be "all comers: pay me $X to do Y", it might be "I and only I can do Y", it might be "Me and my friends can do Y, you're fucked". Any of these are valid outcomes. Though if the adversary has other patents of use to you, you might be persuaded to moderate your stance.