"The dispute rumbled back and forth until Microsoft made a surprising pivot. Instead of denying wrongdoing, Microsoft argued that reselling perpetual licenses infringed its copyright. It also claimed that the practice of companies selling only a portion of their licenses was not permitted. The Competition Appeal Tribunal pondered the software giant's claims and disagreed. According to the judgment, there was nothing preventing the subdivision and resale of Windows and Office licenses acquired under Microsoft's Enterprise Agreements,"
"Had the judgment found in Microsoft's favor, there could have been profound implications. ValueLicensing contended that reselling perpetual licenses was perfectly legal, and covered by a European ruling in the UsedSoft case, which found that software licenses could be resold. Microsoft, on the other hand, stated that since Office contained resources such as icons, fonts, and help files, it qualified as a creative work, and so was covered by the Copyright and Information Society Directive."
ValueLicensing lodged a 2021 claim against Microsoft over contract clauses allegedly aimed at stopping resale of perpetual licenses and sued for £270 million in lost business. Microsoft shifted to argue that reselling perpetual licenses infringed its copyright and that partial resale of license pools was not permitted. The Competition Appeal Tribunal rejected those claims, finding nothing preventing subdivision or resale of Windows and Office licenses acquired under Microsoft's Enterprise Agreements. The tribunal issued a unanimous judgment siding with ValueLicensing, noting legal precedent such as the UsedSoft ruling on resale of software licenses.
Read at Theregister
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]