stonebro: I'm confused. Exactly what kind of intellectual property have MS been infringing, and how?
Article says Video codecs (ie the software that lets them render the videos to show on the screen). The software they are based on is licences and the claim is that Microsoft hasn't paid the licence and yet has provided the feature.
The specifics beyond that are likely more technical and this court case could be the result of a breakdown of agreements between the companies.
On a sane level I suspect we'll see one of a few resolutions:
1) Microsoft will give in and pay the amount. Might be unlikely considering the numbers flying around as they won't want to drive their product prices up.
2) Microsoft and Minorota come to an out of court settlement.
3) Microsoft removes the video codecs (quickest and fast solution to the problem). Downside here is that if those video codecs are widely used it thus invalidates a lot of user and software info. Microsoft could then revert to choice 1 or they could pass the price onto the consumer to pay for their own usage licence.
4) Courts in the US find that the costs for Microsoft to pay are considered too high via the laws on market position and dominance - - might mean voiding the fees or payment of reduced fees
5) anything else is possible .