This is incoherent, non sequitur. Again, we're talking about two different categories of devices: general computing vs. non-general. At the moment, smartphones are non-general, insofar as they are not made for user programmability from the device itself.
Secondly, that MS case is a different matter than the one cited here, and does not map well onto this case.
Thirdly, the major precedent of the original ruling appears to have been overturned shortly after. This damages the argument somewhat. The ruling seems scurrilous in the first place, in my opinion.
