I hate software patents, but the article mentions its author presented to MS, and the company knowingly infringed it. Knowingly, I guess, it's the key here. MS

I hate software patents, but the article mentions its author presented to MS, and the company knowingly infringed it. Knowingly, I guess, it's the key here. MS knew they were doing "something illegal", but decided to go anyway. Of course, neither I or the article present any proof, as an internal corporate email saying "Yay! Let's do it anyway", but if we assume the judge gathered enough evidence to show this was done, then damages are owned. USD 388m worth? No idea.