Toronto company i4i were awarded the fee after convincing a Texas court that Microsoft had deliberately infringed one of their patents when creating Microsoft Word and in the making of its latest operating system, Vista.

However, the case has been shrouded in controversy following Microsoft’s claims that i4i ‘shopped around’ for a friendly court to guarantee itself a win.

Software goliath, Microsoft, is up in arms over the decision and question why a Canadian company would take them to court in Texas. Microsoft themselves are based in Washington state, over 2,000 miles away from Texas.

The Texas Eastern district is well known for its high rate of success, fast turnarounds and large rewards for patent litigants, with Judge Leonard Davis taking the seat for many of the cases.

Asked why they chose to sue Microsoft in Texas, lead lawyer for prosecution, McKool Smith’s Doug Cawley, said, “i4i sued in Tyler, Texas because the time to trial is short”.

He went on to say, “Judge Davis in Tyler worked his way through school as a computer programmer and systems analyst, so he is familiar with this type of technology.”

It is also important to note that Judge Davis and the Texas Eastern district have previously rejected patent infringement claims against Microsoft, notably in the case of Fenner Investments, who believed that Microsoft and Nintendo had used their technology to create a joystick add-on.

Only last month, Microsoft was made to pay $388 million in another patent infringement case, relating this time, somewhat ironically, to its anti-piracy software.

Microsoft will appeal against this latest judgement as they look to recoup the $290 million awarded to i4i.

With Friday’s guilty verdict, Mr Tenenbaum found himself with a debt to pay to four music labels. Charged $22,500 for each of 30 specific songs, the news of his conviction quickly spread through social networking sites such as Twitter and over the weekend approximately $2000 was donated.

However, posting to his blog Mr Tenenbaum said “I ask no one to help me. And I ask for no one to cover what I signed up for. I shared music. I was the one who wanted a say in court. This lawsuit was against me. This is my verdict.” He added that he would pass any donations to his legal team after many individuals had worked for free. “We don’t want the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) to be paid when I can’t afford to do it, and this money could be more valuable elsewhere. From the money raised already, I would like to reimburse my legal team for the money they’ve spent out of their own pockets.”

He explained that using Kazaa and Napster was like having “this giant library in front of you” and being questioned by his own lawyers said “I used the computer. I uploaded, I downloaded music.”

A recent change in procedure means that music companies will now try and settle out of court. However, those that have already been filed will inevitably go to trial. Boston Globe’s Kevin Cullen said that that student had “got off easy” after the first case of its kind saw a Minneapolis resident ordered to pay $1.92m after sharing 24 songs.