I believe I have an answer to my question.
Under the OGL 1.0 or 1.0a, if I choose to use it, I have the right to use the Open Source Content material (the SRDs) word for word if I want to. What I give up in exchange for this right, creating what is an enforceable contract IMHO because that means there is consideration (or a mutual exchange of value of some sort), is giving WotC more IP property rights over the branding, name, non-Open Source Content, etc. than it would otherwise have received under standard copyright law and other IP laws. Also, by including the OGL 1.0 in my work I voluntarily make my work, which may contain unique and potentially protected material not derived from the SRD part of the a chain of Open Source Content that always leads back to WotC. So those elements of Microlite that are NOT derivative from the WotC Open Source Content are all the same now Open Source Content covered under the OGL 1.0.
That is some powerful consideration in favor of WotC and IMHO makes the OGL 1.0 and 1.0a an enforceable contract that cannot be unilaterally amended, revoked, or 'unauthorized' by WotC. All the same that is just my opinion. I think I will wait until a court issues a more binding opinion in my favor, preferably without me being a part of the proceedings, before I continue using the OGL 1.0 or 1.0a.