Did you read the articles?
It looks like M$ used the CDTV as an example of prior art in an attempt to dismiss a claim from a patent they had infringed. I am not 100% sure about how the exact legal situation, but AFAIK, when it comes to patents, if an idea is widespread enough, or too obvious, you cannot patent it. If somehow you managed to patent it and it could be proved Prior-Art existed, a defendant can have the claim dismissed. Where I am not 100% on the ownership of said prior-art. I thought that it had to be owned / at one time owned by the defendant. I dont imagine that M$ at one time owned Commodore.
I *think* M$ argued that the CDTV had been out years and years before TVi's patent and thus so was the idea of an "AutoRun" CD feature, it was therefore obvious. But I don't know cos I never found M$ parts of the legal documents pertaining to this case.
However in the end M$ were defeated because the CDTV autoboot functionality was deemed (in the courts eyes) not close enough to the "Autorun" patent that TVi registered.
Unless Commodore took out a patent (which I dont think they did) in the same area, there is no money for anyone other than TVi (with whom M$ settled out of court for an undisclosed sum).
Shame, cos I am sure that with the right lawyers and tech-historians the TVi patent could have been blown out of the water.
The same goes for the Immersion patent on haptics
(force feedback), I cannot believe M$ & Sony settled with them over that one. I've got a BBC model b joystick with rumble, and lots of 1980's arcade machines with rumble.