For all anyone knows and in all likelihood this Popfly thing was probably created by a team of less than ten people. "OMG MICROSOFT MADE THIS" doesn't quite mean the same thing every time the subject is brought up.
Opensourceophiles often bring up the "OMG MICROSOFT STOLE IT" defense, which to me seems incredibly hypocritical. For being so open to the free exchange of ideas, you sure are deathly frightened of any market competition. Maybe your open-source is freeware too, but it still becomes part of the market. In the event that a large company wishes to entertain the same idea while providing for all the regulations in place to help ensure product worth (professional technical suport, development cycles and the like) it is taking the gamble that they can make the better product. It's all about where the consumers choose to align themselves - the corporation requires a userbase for development costs, and open source projects require a userbase to voluntarily fill the service gaps inherent with the free model. Both are prone to failure without this vital user base, just as they easily stagnate without innovating competition.
This is why I can't stand fanaticism from either side of this argument. It all boils down to economics. And for the topic at hand, this is Microsoft displaying the early results of their latest work heading into the next generation. Does it fit our needs? No. Is Microsoft evil for taking an existing idea and applying it to a new media? No. When you someday invent the next globe-changing thing, I'm sure you'll be happy to have had the work of those before you as inspiration. And that day you'll perhaps say, "Hmm, the Captain had a point all along" as you swivel in your big, scary, evil (but very comfy) corporate office chair to watch your product make you richer by the minute.