Microsoft *has* NOT won. AT ALL.
The article is disappointing for its lack of balance. It's framed on the underlying assumption that MSFT's patents have some legal basis. This is fundamentally wrong. It is up to the patent holder to prove their patents, not for the accused to dissprove them.
The analysis should be one of "tell us which patents you allege have been infringed and then we can start talking about them".
It is an undisputable, historical fact that MSFT HAS NEVER
(a) publicly detailed the patents it alleges have been infringed; and
(b) never disclosed the terms of the so-called 'Patent Agreements' it has signed with Novel, et. al.
Defending a spurious claim involves costs - both in legal fees and management's required attention. It is an equally plausible argument that the reason by Novel, et. al. signed the agreements with MSFT is because the 'protection money' they pay to MSFT (if they do at all- we don't know as no-one has seen the agreements) is much less that the expensive US legal bill that would have to be carried through to settlement. With out knowing the content of these 'Patent Agreements' is CANNOT be said that they give support to MSFT's claims and it is a complicit media that does not point this out.
IT CAN ONLY BE DEDUCED that the reason MSFT has consistently failed to detail anything (other than the total number) about its patents is because even they do not believe they can be enforced - either because (a) they have no basis in law, or (b) they are trivial such that they can be side-stepped/worked around with some non-significant code adjustments.
The article fails to directly mention any of this. And for that reason it gets an....
... EPIC FAIL!