I just re-read the article. If you really squint you might be able to assume that their code was scrambled in some way (if that's what "not compiled" means). Otherwise if you're trying to gain (well deserved) sympathy for something like this then the deobfuscation process is probably the most important part of the story. Did MS then rescramble the code? I'd want to know that as well.
Of course it has context if this is being presented as a legal issue. The original article doesn't really mention it (although it's easier to assume now with the hindsight of a complete comment thread). I believe you are "even more guilty" if you de-obfuscate someone's code, then copy and republish/reuse.
OK - I can see what you mean. However, I still disagree. De-obfuscation does not provide more evidence that infringement occurred, it simply implies that whoever did it likely knew they should not be doing it, which has (I believe) absolutely no legal implication.
