Now they're just arguing over how bad

Rico says that, according to a Bloomberg News article, it seems that Microsoft is still wrong, but they can't seem to agree on how wrong:

Microsoft won an appeals court ruling on Friday that overturned a $358 million patent award to Alcatel-Lucent, in a decision that may alter how damages are calculated. The appeals court, while upholding a finding that Microsoft infringed the patent, ruled that the calculation of damages “lacked sufficient evidentiary support”. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington sent that portion of the case back to the trial court to determine how much Microsoft, the world’s biggest software maker, should pay Alcatel.
The appeal of the April 2008 verdict, which has since swelled to a half-billion dollars with interest, covered several issues. Still, Microsoft argued hardest that damages should not be so high when the invention is one of many features within a product, and more than a dozen companies submitted legal arguments in the case. “The damages award ought to be correlated, in some respect, to the extent the infringing method is used by consumers,” Chief Judge Paul Michel wrote for the three-judge panel.
The patent covers a touch-screen form entry. Microsoft said it was simply a “date-picker” function that was not used with email, the most popular use for its Outlook program. Alcatel describes it as a pop-up tool for form-filling that “plays a central role in the entire operation” of Outlook.
Alcatel, based in Paris, argued it was entitled to eight percent of the total revenue from Outlook sales, or $685 million, calling it “a small fraction” of the more than $8 billion Microsoft had collected from 110 million copies of Outlook sold. Microsoft said the invention was worth, at most, $6.5 million because the feature was not used in email and was just one of many tools that could be used in the calendar function of Outlook.
“Outlook is an enormously complex software program comprising hundreds, if not thousands or even more, features,” the court ruled. “We find it inconceivable to conclude, based on the present record, that the use of one small feature, the date-picker, constitutes a substantial portion of the value of Outlook.” The case attracted the attention of companies, including Intel and Bank of America, that said the appeals court, which specializes in patent law, should clarify what judges should allow jurors to hear regarding evidence of potential damages.

Rico says he'd normally side with the French on this one, just because it's Microsoft, but eight percent for a date picker? Seems like a lot...