@ The First Dave
The verdict is in? According to who exactly?
Sorry, but your suggestion that they don't need to use the word "alleged" is false, you incorrectly assume that the word of a Texas court is wholly accurate, just as you suggest the word of a court in the Netherlands presided over by Scottish judges is wholly and absolutely accurate.
Just because a court rules something does not mean that it's true or correct. Courts are not infallible entities, on the contrary, as has been seen on many occasions, they're very fallible.
Even then of course you assume that everyone has the same standards, certainly I put about as much trust in a Texas judge as I would George Bush telling me he went to Iraq to liberate the people. In the EU, Microsoft would certainly not have been guilty because patents of the type pushed by i4i are unenforcable.
Going to a district court known for being friendly to patent trolls to get a ruling and using that ruling to suggest truth is as dishonest as saying tommorrow is due to be hotter than today, so global warming is worsening at an even more rapid rate than even the most pessimistic studies.
Are you one of those people who believes in god because the pope, living his life of luxury at your expense told you he was real too?