At issue is a software program, which was patented by inventor Carlos Armando Amado, that links databases and spreadsheets. Amado sued Microsoft in 2003, alleging that several versions of Office Suite infringed his patent.

A jury ruled in favor of Amado and awarded him 4 cents per infringing unit. The case was appealed and then remanded to a district court, which tripled the damage award.

In the latest appeal, Microsoft asked for damages to be held at the jury award of 4 cents per copy of Microsoft's Office Suite sold with the infringing software. Amado asked for $2.00 per copy, an amount ordered held in escrow.

"Because the district court failed to adequately explain the basis for its award of $0.12 per infringing unit sold during the stay of the permanent injunction, however, and because recent Supreme Court action may affect post-verdict damages, we vacate in part and remand," the appeals court said.

The appeals court said it took no position on the proper amount of damages, saying that "logically" the award should "fall somewhere between" 4 cents and $2 per copy.

The new ruling also said that the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California "did not abuse its discretion" by dissolving its permanent injunction barring Microsoft from using the software.

Lawyers are asking an appeals court in Virginia to toss out Moussaoui's guilty plea. They say the strict rules about what classified information could be discussed made it impossible for attorneys to properly advise him. They say that violated Moussaoui's constitutional rights.

In the case being argued Wednesday, Exxon Mobil Corp. wants the court to erase the award of punitive damages to nearly 33,000 commercial fishermen, Native Alaskans, landowners, businesses and local governments.

The 987-foot tanker, commanded by its captain, Joseph Hazelwood, missed a turn and ran aground on a reef in Prince William Sound, causing the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

Two brothers from Cordova, Alaska, were in line in front of the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning, waiting to watch the arguments inside.

Commercial fisherman Steve Copeland, who was 41 at the time of the spill, said he cannot afford to retire because his business has never recovered from the steep decline it suffered due to the disaster.

His brother, Tom, said that Exxon "needs to get told they need to be a better corporate citizen."

A jury initially awarded $287 million to compensate for economic losses and $5 billion in punitive damages. A federal appeals court cut the punitive damages in half. The compensatory damages have been paid.

Now Exxon says it should not face any punitive damages because the company already has paid $3.4 billion in fines, penalties, cleanup costs, claims and other expenses.

It argues that long-standing maritime law and the 1970s-era Clean Water Act should bar any punitive damages, which are intended both to punish behavior and deter a repeat.

The company says it should not be held accountable for Hazelwood's reckless conduct. He left the bridge of the ship before the turn and had been drinking shortly before it left port, both in violation of Coast Guard rules and company policy.

The plaintiffs say the judgment, representing three weeks of Exxon's 2006 profit, is rational and proportionate. It takes account of Exxon's decision to allow Hazelwood to command the ship, despite knowing he had an ongoing drinking problem, the plaintiffs contend.

Justice Samuel Alito, who owns Exxon stock, is not taking part in the case. A 4-4 split would leave the damages award in place.

Sher won a jury verdict in state Civil District Court that put the firm on the hook for the cost of repairs. The state's 4th Circuit Court of Appeal also sided with Sher in November.

Now Sher's case is one of two scheduled to be heard Tuesday by the state's highest court that have high-stakes implications for Louisiana's insurance market.

Both cases going before the Louisiana Supreme Court involve disputes over policy language between insurance companies and property owners after 2005 hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Lafayette and other insurers say their homeowner policies don't cover damage from any type of flooding, including water from a levee breach. "A flood is a flood, without regard to cause," said Jim Whittle, assistant general counsel for the American Insurance Association.

In a separate but similar case last year, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled that insurers aren't obligated to cover water damage from a levee failure.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear appeals in that case from Xavier University and dozens of other Louisiana policyholders.

James Garner, one of Sher's lawyers, said the federal courts shouldn't have the last word in the dispute over damage from a levee breach. "One thing is certain: the Louisiana Supreme Court makes Louisiana law, not the 5th Circuit," Garner said.

The state Supreme Court also was scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday in a case centered on Louisiana's Valued Policy Law, which applies when a home is destroyed.

Mark and Barbara Landry, whose Vermilion Parish home was demolished during Hurricane Rita, sued Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp. after the company denied their claim. The Landrys argued that the Valued Policy Law requires Citizens to cover all of the damage to their home, even if only part of the damage was caused by wind — a covered peril — while the rest was caused by flood water — a non-covered peril.

Citizens and other insurers say their policies cover damage from wind but not rising water, including wind-driven storm surge, and deny that the Valued Policy Law obligates them to pay for flood damage.

The European Union fined Microsoft Corp. a record $1.3 billion Wednesday for the amount it charges rivals for software information.

EU regulators said the company charged "unreasonable prices" until last October to software developers who wanted to make products compatible with the Windows desktop operating system.

The fine is the largest ever for a single company and brings to just under $2.5 billion the amount the EU has demanded Microsoft pay in a long-running antitrust dispute.

Microsoft immediately said the issues for which it was fined have been resolved and the company was making its products more open.

The fine comes less that a week after Microsoft said it would share more information about its products and technology in an effort to make it work better with rivals' software and meet the demands of antitrust regulators in Europe.

But EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes remained skeptical and said Microsoft was under investigation in two additional cases.

"Talk is cheap," Kroes said. "Flouting the rules is expensive."

Microsoft's actions have stifled innovation and affected millions of people around the world, Kroes said. She called the record 899 million euro fine "a reasonable response to a series of quite unreasonable actions."

"We could have gone as high as 1.5 billion euros ($2.23 billion)," she said. "The maximum amount is higher than what we did at the end of the day."

Microsoft fought hard against a March 2004 decision that led to a 497 million euro ($613 million) fine and an order that the software maker share interoperability information with rivals within 120 days. The company lost its appeal in that case in September.

Microsoft was fined $357 million in July 2006 for failing to obey that order.

The EU alleged that Microsoft withheld crucial interoperability information for desktop PC software -- where it is the world's leading supplier -- in an effort squeeze into a new market and damage rivals.

The company delayed compliance for three years, the EU said, only making changes in October to the patent licenses for companies that need data to create software that works with Microsoft.

Microsoft had initially set a royalty rate of 3.87 percent of a licensee's product revenues for patents and demanded that companies looking for communication information -- which it said was highly secret -- pay 2.98 percent of their products' revenues.

The EU complained last March that the rates were unfair. Under threat of fines, Microsoft two months later reduced the patent rate to 0.7 percent and the information license to 0.5 percent -- but only in Europe, leaving the worldwide rates unchanged.

The EU's Court of First Instance ruling that upheld regulators' views changed the company's mind again in October when it offered a new license for interoperability information for a flat fee of 10,000 euros ($14,900) and an optional worldwide patent license for a reduced royalty of 0.4 percent.

A jury convicted Mark Jensen last week of killing Julie Jensen on Dec. 3, 1998, in their Pleasant Prairie home. Some jurors cited the letter as a key piece of evidence.

Julie Jensen left the note with a neighbor to give to police if something happened to her.

"I pray that I am wrong and nothing happens, but I am suspicious of Mark's suspicious behaviors and fear for my early demise," Julie Jensen wrote in the letter. She said she refused to leave because of their two young sons.

Mark Jensen, her husband of 14 years, claimed she was depressed, committed suicide and framed him. At the time, Mark Jensen was having an affair with a woman he has since married.

He faces a mandatory penalty of life in prison during sentencing, set for Wednesday. The judge was to determine if he should ever be eligible for parole.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a California case with similar elements in April. Legal experts say if the court overturns that conviction, it could pave the way for Mark Jensen to get a new trial.

"It would surprise me if he didn't get a new trial based on that," said Phillip A. Koss, a University of Wisconsin-Madison adjunct professor and Walworth County district attorney.

Mark Jensen, now 48, was charged with first-degree murder in 2002, but legal wrangling over evidence delayed the trial repeatedly.

The evidence included the letter, as well as Julie Jensen's statements to police, a neighbor and her son's teacher about her suspicions.

"The economic situation has become distinctly less favorable" since the summer, the Fed chief told the House Financial Services Committee, a sign markets took to be evidence of yet more interest rate cuts by the U.S. central bank which pushed the euro higher.

Lower interest rates can jump-start a nation's economy, but may weigh on its currency as traders transfer funds to countries where they can earn higher returns.

Shortly after his testimony, the euro surged to a record $1.5105 before falling back slightly to $1.5043 in afternoon trading, from the $1.4967 it bought in late trading Tuesday in New York.

The surging euro makes it more expensive for Americans visiting Europe, but makes U.S. shopping more appealing to Europeans.

Since Bernanke's last such assessment last summer, the housing slump has worsened, credit problems have intensified and the job market has deteriorated. Bernanke said that the confluence of these factors has turned people and businesses alike toward a more cautious attitude toward spending and investment.

This, he said, has further weakened the economy.

That is in contrast to Europe where, despite the roaring euro, growth is still on track, albeit slightly slower, and markets are optimistic that should the U.S. go into recession, the continent would be able to weather any such slowdowns.

The European Central Bank, which has left its own rates unchanged since last summer, is expected to keep them at 4 percent when it meets next week.