This looks to me like another way for MS to actually own a computer that someone has purchased. It is taking freedom away from end users, and actually taking the rights to their own machine. This is something I am trying (mostly failing) to teach people in my community. It is one of the reasons I advocate GNU/Linux.
I do not run any MS software or products on my machine. But my mom just got a new computer for her office, and she needs Windows to run programs for her work. So she is now on Windows 7, after being satisfied and comfortable with XP for years. I convinced her to upgrade because support for XP is not going to be around much longer. Bought the computer from a local shop who did the build themselves, so it does not have the strange partitions that some Windows 7 machines have been given. But it still takes away from her freedom to do what she wants with the machine she paid for.
I think that there should be a focus on letting people, meaning general users, know that if stuff like this UEFI is on their machines, then they do not really own the machine. When you own something, you can do with it what you want. MS wants to take that away from computer users and buyers. If more people could understand this, which seems simple to me but I have been using GNU/Linux for several years now, I think that it would help create a larger backlash against anti-competitive practices.
Then again, maybe not. So many computer users so not really know very much, if anything, about the workings of their computers. If it works and does what they need, they do not care about anything else. So many end users do not even know that there is an option for a better, more secure, and (in my opinion) much easier to use and control OS out there. That is the main problem that I face in trying to start a business based around GNU/Linux and FOSS.
The philosophy exam was a piece of cake -- which was a bit of a surprise, actually, because I was expecting some questions on a sheet of paper.