As I underderstand it "sells 0day to gov" and "sells 0day for crime" are distinct brokers, even though in some cases they purchase exploits from the same suppliers.
TFA is really only talking about the first group because (for obvious reasons) regulating brokers who sell exploits or tools for criminal purposes is not going to work. That's already illegal.
Insecure spyware/crapware is a distinct (commercial) market which doesn't overlap much with the other two and doesn't rely on "0day" at all.
Broadly I agree with your analysis re: Microsoft's motives here.
However I believe the OP's analogy holds if you don't overextend it beyond exploit sales to government.
TFA is really only talking about the first group because (for obvious reasons) regulating brokers who sell exploits or tools for criminal purposes is not going to work. That's already illegal.
Insecure spyware/crapware is a distinct (commercial) market which doesn't overlap much with the other two and doesn't rely on "0day" at all.
Broadly I agree with your analysis re: Microsoft's motives here.
However I believe the OP's analogy holds if you don't overextend it beyond exploit sales to government.