Microsoft has been involved in numerous high-profile legal matters that involved litigation over the history of the company, including cases against the United States, the European Union, and competitors.
Government regulatory actions and court decisions may hinder our ability to provide the benefits of our software to consumers and businesses, thereby reducing the attractiveness of our products and the revenues that come from them. New actions could be initiated at any time, either by these or other governments or private claimants, including with respect to new versions of Windows or other Microsoft products. The outcome of such actions, or steps taken to avoid them, could adversely affect us in a variety of ways, including:
- We may have to choose between withdrawing products from certain geographies to avoid fines or designing and developing alternative versions of those products to comply with government rulings, which may entail removing functionality that customers want or on which developers rely
- The rulings described above may be cited as a precedent in other competition law proceedings.
In the 1990s, Microsoft adopted exclusionary licensing under which PC manufacturers were required to pay for an MS-DOS license even when the system shipped with an alternative operating system. Critics attest that it also used predatory tactics to price its competitors out of the market and that Microsoft erected technical barriers to make it appear that competing products did not work on its operating system. In a consent decree filed on July 15, 1994, Microsoft agreed to a deal under which, among other things, the company would not make the sale of its operating systems conditional on the purchase of any other Microsoft product. On February 14, 1995 Judge Stanley Sporkin issued a 45-page opinion that the consent decree was not in the public interest. Later that spring, a three-judge federal appeals panel removed Sporkin and reassigned the consent decree. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson entered the decree on August 21, 1995, three days before the launch of Windows 95.
After bundling the Internet Explorer web browser into its Windows operating system in the late 1990s (without requiring a separate purchase) and acquiring a dominant share in the web browser market, the antitrust case United States v. Microsoft was brought against the company. In a series of rulings by judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, the company was found to have violated its earlier consent decree and abused its monopoly in the desktop operating systems market. The "findings of fact" during the antitrust case established that Microsoft has a monopoly in the PC desktop operating systems market:
Viewed together, three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. First, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is extremely large and stable. Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry. Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft's customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows. (III.34)
The findings of fact go on to explain the nature of the "barrier to entry":
The fact that there is a multitude of people using Windows makes the product more attractive to consumers. The large installed base ... impels ISVs (independent software vendors) to write applications first and foremost to Windows, thereby ensuring a large body of applications from which consumers can choose. The large body of applications thus reinforces demand for Windows, augmenting Microsoft's dominant position and thereby perpetuating ISV incentives to write applications principally for Windows ... The small or non-existent market share of an aspiring competitor makes it prohibitively expensive for the aspirant to develop its PC operating system into an acceptable substitute for Windows. (III.39–40)
The proposed remedy (dividing Microsoft into two companies) was never applied. The judge who decided the original case was removed from the decision concerning the penalty due to public statements, and replaced by a judge more sympathetic to Microsoft. While new penalties were under consideration, the Clinton administration ended and the Bush administration took office. The new administration announced that in the interest of ending the case as quickly as possible, it would no longer seek to break the company up, and that it would stop investigating claims of illegal tying of products. Eighteen days later, Judge Kollar-Kotelly ordered the justice department and Microsoft to "engage in discussions seven days a week, 24 hours a day." The judge cited the events of September 11, 2001, in her direction to begin settlement talks but did not explain the linkage between the two. Attorney General Ashcroft, however, denied that the events of September 11 had any effect on the outcome. Microsoft subsequently reached a settlement with the Department of Justice and some of the states which brought suit against it. Several[quantify] class-action lawsuits filed after the conviction are still pending.[when?]
In early 2002, Microsoft proposed to settle the private lawsuits by donating $1 billion USD in money, software, services, and training, including Windows licenses and refurbished PCs, to about 12,500 underprivileged public schools. This was seen by the judge as a potential windfall for Microsoft, not only in educating schoolchildren on Microsoft solutions but also in flooding the market with Microsoft products. Among the protesters were Apple Inc. which feared further loss of its educational market share. The federal judge rejected the proposed settlement.
In 2003 to 2004, the European Commission investigated the bundling of Windows Media Player into Windows, a practice which rivals complained was destroying the market for their own products. Negotiations between Microsoft and the Commission broke down in March 2004, and the company was subsequently handed down a record fine of €497 million ($666 million) for its breaches of EU competition law. Separate investigations into alleged abuses of the server market were also ongoing at the same time. On December 22, 2004, the European Court decided that the measures imposed on Microsoft by the European Commission would not be delayed, as was requested by Microsoft while waiting for the appeal. Microsoft has since paid a €497 million fine, shipped versions of Windows without Windows Media Player, and licensed many of the protocols used in its products to developers in countries within the European Economic Area. However, the European Commission has charactized the much delayed protocol licensing as unreasonable, called Microsoft "non-compliant" and still violating antitrust law in 2007, and said that its RAND terms were above market prices; in addition, they said software patents covering the code "lack significant innovation", which Microsoft and the EC had agreed would determine licensing fees. Microsoft responded by saying, that other government agencies had found "considerable innovation". Microsoft appealed the facts and ruling to the European Court of First Instance with hearings in September 2006.
In 2000, a group of customers and business filed a class action suit in Comes v. Microsoft Corp., alleging that Microsoft violated Iowa's antitrust laws by engaging in monopolistic practices. In 2002, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that indirect purchasers (consumers who purchased computers from a third-party, with Microsoft's software pre-installed in the computer) could be included as members of the class in the class action suit. On remand, the trial court certified two classes of plaintiffs, and the Iowa Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the class certification. In August 2007, the parties ultimately reached a settlement valued at $179.95 million.
The court affirmed the original contested finding:
21 In the contested decision, the Commission finds that Microsoft infringed Article 82 EC and Article 54 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) by twice abusing a dominant position. 22 The Commission first identifies three separate worldwide product markets and considers that Microsoft had a dominant position on two of them. It then finds that Microsoft had engaged in two kinds of abusive conduct. As a result it imposes a fine and a number of remedies on Microsoft.
All elements of Microsoft's appeal were dismissed.
Microsoft accepted the judgment of the Court of First Instance and proceeded to make available interoperability information as originally required by the European Commission.
Microsoft also faced competition law in South Korea and was fined $32 million in December 2005 and ordered to unbundle instant messaging, Windows Media Player and Windows Media Service, or let competitors' products take their place. Microsoft noted in their October 2005 SEC filing that they may have to pull out of South Korea, although they later denied fulfilling such a plan. Microsoft's 2006 appeal was struck down; they have another appeal pending. Microsoft also faced sanctions from Japan Fair Trade Commission twice in 1998 when Japanese manufacturers were forced to include Microsoft Word on new systems instead of homegrown word processor software Ichitaro, and again in 2004 for clauses detrimental to ability of Japanese computer manufacturers to obtain a Windows OEM license.
European antitrust regulators on February 27, 2008 fined Microsoft $1.3 billion for failing to comply with a 2004 judgment, that the company had abused its market dominance. The new fine by the European Commission was the largest it has ever imposed on an individual company, and brings the total in fines imposed on Microsoft to about $US 2.5 billion, at current exchange rates.
Microsoft had previously been fined after the commission determined in 2004 that the company had abused the dominance of its Windows operating system to gain unfair market advantage. The commission imposing the new fine said, that it was because the company had not met the prescribed remedies after the earlier judgment.
The European Union Microsoft competition case is a case brought by the European Commission of the European Union (EU) against Microsoft for abuse of its dominant position in the market (according to competition law). It started as a complaint from Novell over Microsoft's licensing practices in 1993, and eventually resulted in the EU ordering Microsoft to divulge certain information about its server products and release a version of Microsoft Windows without Windows Media Player.
February 2008 fineEdit
This section does not cite any sources. (April 2008) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
On February 27, 2008 the European Union (EU) competitions commission announced its decision to fine the Microsoft Corporation €899 million (US$1.35 billion), approximately 1/10 of the company's net yearly earnings, for failing to comply with the 2004 antitrust order.
The first decision in this antitrust case was given in 2004 citing that Microsoft withheld needed interoperability information from rival software companies which prevented them from making software compatible with Windows. The commission ordered Microsoft to provide this information. Microsoft agreed to this, providing the information for royalty fees of 6.85% of the licensee's revenues for the product on grounds of innovation (specifically, 3.87% for the patent license and of 2.98% for the information license). The EU found these royalty fees unreasonable and Microsoft was ordered to lower them. Microsoft complied with this, adjusting the royalty rates to 1.2% (changing the rates for the licenses to 0.7% and 0.5%, respectively) in the European Union, while keeping the rate the same for the rest of the world. The EU still saw this as an unreasonable rate, and Microsoft, two months after lowering the rates, reduced the rates yet again to a flat rate of €10,000 or a royalty of 0.4% applicable worldwide. Microsoft's royalty rates, which were deemed unreasonable for the period of 15 months between June 21, 2006 and October 21, 2007 are the cause for the fine. So far, the EU has fined Microsoft €1.68 billion in 3 separate fines in this case. This fine will go towards the European Union annual budget.
European Commissioner for Competition Neelie Kroes stated that the fine was "reasonable and proportionate," as the figure could have gone up as high as €1.5 billion, the maximum that the EU commission can impose. She also said that it should act as "a signal to the outside world, and especially Microsoft, that they should stick to the rules" and that "Talk is cheap. Flouting the rules is expensive." Although she also expressed hope that "today's decision closes a dark chapter in Microsoft's record of non-compliance with the Commission."
It is not certain whether Microsoft will appeal this decision. A Microsoft spokesperson has stated that Microsoft will review this latest fine, citing that "The commission announced in October 2007 that Microsoft was in full compliance with the 2004 decision, so these fines are about the past issues that have been resolved." Microsoft's General Counsel Brad Smith commented "It's clearly very important to us as a company that we comply with our obligations under European law. We will study this decision carefully, and if there are additional steps that we need to take in order to comply with it, we will take them." Microsoft had appealed against fines by the EU before, but all the charges were defeated. If Microsoft does not appeal the decision, the company will have 3 months (starting February 27) to pay the fine in full.
The decisions came after Microsoft announced they were disclosing 30,000 pages of previously secret software code last Thursday (February 21). The EU competition commissioner commented that this move "does not necessarily equal a change in business practice."
Spanish antitrust investigationEdit
United States v. Microsoft Corp., 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000) was a set of consolidated civil actions filed against Microsoft Corporation on May 18, 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and twenty U.S. states. Joel I. Klein was the lead prosecutor. The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft abused monopoly power in its handling of operating system sales and web browser sales. The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. Bundling them together is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft's victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of Internet Explorer. It was further alleged that this unfairly restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store. Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with OEM computer manufacturers, and Microsoft's intent in its course of conduct.
Microsoft stated that the merging of Microsoft Windows and Internet Explorer was the result of innovation and competition, that the two were now the same product and were inextricably linked together and that consumers were now getting all the benefits of IE for free. Those who opposed Microsoft's position countered that the browser was still a distinct and separate product which did not need to be tied to the operating system, since a separate version of Internet Explorer was available for Mac OS. They also asserted that IE was not really free because its development and marketing costs may have kept the price of Windows higher than it might otherwise have been. The case was tried before U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson. The DOJ was initially represented by David Boies. On June 30, 2004, the U.S. appeals court unanimously approved the settlement with the Justice Department, rejecting objections that the sanctions were inadequate.
In March 2004, during a consumer class-action lawsuit in Minnesota, internal documents subpoenaed from Microsoft revealed that the company had violated nondisclosure agreements seven years earlier in obtaining business plans from Go Corporation, using them to develop and announce a competing product named PenWindows, and convincing Intel to reduce its investment in Go. After Go was purchased by AT&T and Go's tablet-based computing efforts were shelved, PenWindows development was dropped.
In May 2004, a class-action lawsuit accused Microsoft of overcharging customers in the state of California. The company settled the case for $1.1 billion, and a California court ordered Microsoft to pay an additional $258 million in legal fees (including over $3,000 per hour for the lead attorney in the case, more than $2,000 per hour for colleagues, and in excess of $1,000 per hour for administrative work). A Microsoft attorney responded, "Somebody ends up paying for this. These large fee awards get passed on to consumers." The total bill for legal fees was later reduced to just over $112 million. Because of the structure of the settlement, the law firm which sued Microsoft could end up getting more money from the company than California consumers and schools, the beneficiaries of the settlement.
In 2006, Microsoft initiated an investigation of Lithuanian government institutions for determining whether they choose long-term strategies of the software they use correctly. The investigation, funded by Microsoft itself, will be performed by the Vilnius University together with the Lithuanian Institution of the Free Market, a think tank organization. The investigation was initialised after the government started to prepare 860 thousand litas project to encourage the use of open-source software. The vice-president of Microsoft, Vahe Torossian, stated that "the government should not be technologically subjectivist".
On July 12, 2013, Microsoft is suing the U.S. Customs and Border Protection over Google phone ban. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is also named in the lawsuit.
Microsoft has also fought numerous legal battles against private companies. The most prominent ones are against:
- Alcatel-Lucent, which won US$1.52 billion in a lawsuit which alleged that Microsoft had infringed its patents on playback of audio files. This ruling was overturned in a higher court.
- Apple Inc. (known as Apple Computer, Inc. at the time), which accused Microsoft in the late 1980s of copying the "look and feel" of the graphical user interface of Apple's operating systems. The courts ruled in favor of Microsoft in 1994. Another suit by Apple accused Microsoft, along with Intel and the San Francisco Canyon Company, in 1995 of knowingly stealing several thousand lines of QuickTime source code in an effort to improve the performance of Video for Windows. After a threat to withdraw support for Office for Mac, this lawsuit was ultimately settled in 1997. Apple agreed to make Internet Explorer the default browser over Netscape, and Microsoft agreed to continue developing Office and other software for the Mac for the next 5 years, purchase $150 million of non-voting Apple stock, and made a quiet payoff estimated to be in the US$500 million-$2 billion range.
- AOL, on behalf of its Netscape division. Netscape (as an independent company) also was involved in the United States v. Microsoft antitrust suit.
- AtomicPark.com, which in 2009 was ordered to pay $1.2 million to Microsoft for selling unauthorized versions of Microsoft software.
- Be Inc., which accused Microsoft of exclusionary and anticompetitive behavior intended to drive Be out of the market. Be even offered to license its Be Operating System (BeOS) for free to any PC vendors who would ship it pre-installed, but the vendors declined due to what Be believes were fears of pricing retaliation from Microsoft: by raising the price of Microsoft Windows for one particular PC vendor, Microsoft could price that vendor's PCs out of the market.
- Bristol Technology, which accused Microsoft illegally withheld Windows source code and used its dominant position with Windows to move into other markets. A ruling later ordered Microsoft to pay $1 million to Bristol Technologies (see also Windows Interface Source Environment).
- Caldera, Inc. in 1996, accused Microsoft of several anti-competitive practises, including vaporware announcements, creating FUD, exclusionary licensing and artificial tying. One of the claims was down to bundling and tying MS-DOS 7 and Windows 4 into a single product (Windows 95) for the sole purpose of eliminating competition, another to having modified Windows 3.1 so that it would not run on DR DOS 6.0 although there was no technical reason for it not to work. Several industry experts revealed that Microsoft put encrypted code, which became known as AARD code, in five otherwise unrelated Microsoft programs in order to prevent the functioning of DR DOS in pre-releases (beta versions) of Windows 3.1, and that it was technically possible to run Windows 4 on DR-DOS 7 after bypassing some new and non-essential interface code through WinGlue. In 2000, Microsoft settled out-of-court for an undisclosed sum, which in 2009 was revealed to be 280 million dollars, and that Caldera evidence were destroyed in 2003.
- Opera Software, which accused Microsoft of intentionally making its MSN service incompatible with the Opera browser on several occasions.
- Sendo, which accused Microsoft of terminating their partnership so it could steal Sendo's technology to use in Pocket PC 2002 Phone Edition.
- Spyglass, which licensed its browser to Microsoft in return for a percentage of each sale; Microsoft turned the browser into Internet Explorer and bundled it with Windows, giving it away to gain market share but effectively destroying any chance of Spyglass making money from the deal they had signed with Microsoft; Spyglass sued for deception and won a $8 million settlement.
- Stac Electronics, which accused Microsoft of stealing its data compression code and using it in MS-DOS 6.0. Microsoft eventually lost the subsequent Stac v. Microsoft lawsuit and was ordered by a federal court to pay roughly $120 million in compensation.
- Sun Microsystems, which held Microsoft in violation of contract for including a modified version of Java in Microsoft Windows that provided Windows-specific extensions to Sun's Java language; Microsoft lost this decision in court and were forced to stop shipping their Windows-specific Java virtual machine. Microsoft eventually ceased to include any Java Virtual Machine in Windows, and Windows users who require a Java Virtual Machine need to download the software or otherwise acquire a copy from a source other than Microsoft.
- Zhongyi Electronic, which, having licensed two self-designed fonts to Microsoft for use only in Windows 95, filed suit in China in April, 2007, accusing Microsoft of using those fonts in subsequent Windows 98, 2000, XP, 2003 and four other Chinese-language Windows operating systems. Beijing's No. 1 intermediate people's court ruled on November 16, 2009 that Microsoft violated the scope of licensing agreements between the two companies. The result of the verdict is that Microsoft has to stop selling Chinese-language versions of the aforementioned operating systems. Microsoft said it will appeal. One of the fonts in question may be SimSun.
- Many other smaller companies have filed patent abuse and predatory practice suits against Microsoft.
The dispute between Microsoft and Lucent (and later Alcatel-Lucent) began in 2003 when Lucent Technologies (acquired by Alcatel in 2006) filed suit against Gateway in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in San Diego. Lucent also sued Dell in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia; soon thereafter, that court transferred the Dell case to San Diego, where it was consolidated with the case against Gateway. Lucent claimed in this first San Diego case that Dell and Gateway had violated patents on MP3-related technologies developed by Bell Labs, a division of predecessor company American Telephone & Telegraph. Other patents said to be infringed relate to MPEG video technology, speech technology, internet technology, and other technologies. Microsoft intervened in the lawsuit in April 2003 and Alcatel was added after it acquired Lucent.
After the first San Diego lawsuit was filed, Microsoft and Lucent have filed additional patent lawsuits against each other. In February 2007, Microsoft filed a lawsuit at the International Trade Commission claiming that Alcatel-Lucent infringed its patents. There is a second case in San Diego where Microsoft is asserting that Alcatel-Lucent infringes 10 of its patents, and yet another case in Texas where each alleges that the other is infringing its patents.
- Burst.com claims that Microsoft stole Burst's patented technology for delivering high speed streaming sound and video content on the internet. Also at issue in the case is a 35-week period of missing emails in the evidence Microsoft handed over to Burst which was discovered by Burst.com's lawyers. Burst accuses Microsoft of crafting a 30-day email deletion policy specifically to cover up illegal activity. Microsoft settled with the company for $60 million in exchange for an agreement to license some of the company's technologies.
- Eolas and University of California, which accused Microsoft of using some of its software patents in their web browser, won $521 million in court, however in 2012 Eolas' patents were invalidated.
SurfCast is suing Microsoft for infringing patent on Live Tiles.
Apple Computer Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) was a copyright infringement lawsuit in which Apple Computer, Inc. (now Apple Inc.) sought to prevent Microsoft Corporation and Hewlett-Packard from using visual graphical user interface (GUI) elements that were similar to those in Apple's Lisa and Macintosh operating systems. Some critics claimed that Apple was really attempting to gain all intellectual property rights over the desktop metaphor for computer interfaces, and perhaps all GUIs, on personal computers. Apple lost all claims in the lawsuit, except that the court ruled that the "trash can" icon and file folder icons from Hewlett-Packard's now-forgotten NewWave windows application were infringing. The lawsuit was filed in 1988 and lasted four years; the decision was affirmed on appeal in 1994, and Apple's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied.
Microsoft v. Lindows.com, Inc. was a court case brought on December 20, 2001, by Microsoft against Lindows, Inc, claiming that the name "Lindows" was a violation of its trademark "Windows." In addition to the United States, Microsoft has also sued Lindows in Sweden, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Canada. Michael Robertson has called this situation "Sextuple Jeopardy", an extension of the term double jeopardy.
In response to these lawsuits, Lindows had launched ChoicePC.com, which allows people to purchase lifetime Lindows memberships that includes a free copy of LindowsOS, free LindowsOS upgrades for life, and a ChoicePC.com T-shirt, for US$100. All money from the memberships goes towards helping Lindows in its legal battle against Microsoft.
In a legal dispute, Microsoft sued a Canadian high school student named Mike Rowe over the domain name MikeRoweSoft.com. The case received international press attention following Microsoft's perceived heavy handed approach to a 12th grade student's part-time web design business and the subsequent support that Rowe received from the online community. A settlement was eventually agreed, with Rowe granting ownership of the domain to Microsoft in return for training and gifts.
As of 2020[update], the domain MikeRoweSoft.com still redirects to microsoft.com.
Microsoft sued several parties for contributory cybersquatting—that is, encouraging others (through software and instructional videos) to cybersquat on domain names that infringed on Microsoft's trademarks. Microsoft prevailed in court and also established a precedent that liabilities under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) include contributory trademark infringement.
From 1993 until 2002, Total Commander was called Windows Commander; the name was changed in 2002, out of fear of a lawsuit after the developers received a letter from Microsoft pointing out that the word "windows" was trademarked by Microsoft.
The wxWindows project was renamed to wxWidgets in September 2003 out of fear of a lawsuit after the founder developer Julian Smart received a letter from Microsoft pointing out that the 'Windows' is a UK trademark owned by Microsoft.
Microsoft has been accused of deceiving consumers by concealing the high failure rate of its Xbox 360 game console. A woman from California sued Microsoft on October 2008 in Superior Court in Sacramento County, stating that the company violated multiple state consumer-protection and unfair-competition laws. The woman alleged that the company continued to sell the Xbox 360 even though it knew that the console's hardware was likely to fail.
- Asay, Matt (2008-08-03). "Microsoft's annual report: Open-source mental block | The Open Road". CNET News. News.cnet.com. Retrieved 2012-10-19.
- "Justice to Launch Probe of Microsoft". The Washington Post. 1998-10-20. Retrieved 2010-05-12.
- Gavil, Andrew I.; First, Harry (2014-12-09). The Microsoft Antitrust Cases - Competition Policy for the Twenty-first Century. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-02776-2. ISBN 0-262-02776-3.
- Wallace, James (1997), Overdrive, John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-471-18041-6.
- "Justice Sues to Block Microsoft Acquisition". The Washington Post. 1998-10-20. Retrieved 2010-07-09.
- "U.S. vs. Microsoft findings of fact".
- "Bush administration no longer interested in breaking up Microsoft". Court TV. Associated Press. 2001-09-06. Archived from the original on 2007-09-29. Retrieved 2007-02-06.
- "Judge Orders Talks to Settle Microsoft Case". The New York Times. Associated Press. 2001-09-29. Retrieved 2007-05-24.
- "States, Microsoft Rivals Prepare for Next Antitrust Battle". 2003-05-06. Retrieved 2007-06-11.
- "Trustbusters". 2001-10-15. Retrieved 2007-06-11.
- Anderson, Kevin (2002-11-01). "Microsoft wins battle but war continues". BBC News. Retrieved 2007-06-11.
- "MS: Everybody's Got an Opinion". 2001-11-03. Archived from the original on 2012-10-26. Retrieved 2007-06-11.
- "Judge tosses Microsoft schools settlement". Archived from the original on 2012-07-18.
- "Microsoft asks EC for more details on licensing fees". CBS Interactive Inc. Retrieved 2013-12-09.
- "EC threatens Microsoft with more fines".
- "EC accuses Microsoft of source code song and dance". Archived from the original on 2007-05-17. Retrieved 2009-01-27.
- Comes v. Microsoft Corp., 646 N.W.2d 440 (2002); see also $180 Million Microsoft Iowa Antitrust Settlement Results in Cash Benefits to Consumers, Zelle LLP (2007-08-14).
- Comes v. Microsoft Corp., 646 N.W.2d 440 (2002)
- Comes v. Microsoft Corp., 696 N.W.2d 318 (Iowa 2005); standard of review on remand later determined in Comes v. Microsoft Corp., 709 N.W.2d 114 (Iowa 2006).
- $180 Million Microsoft Iowa Antitrust Settlement Results in Cash Benefits to Consumers, Zelle LLP (August 14, 2007).
- "InfoCuria". Curia.europa.eu. Retrieved 2012-10-19.
- Commission Decision 2007/53/EC of 24 March 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 EC and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement against Microsoft Corp. (Case COMP/C-3/37.792 – Microsoft)
- "Judgment Of The Court of First Instance (Grand Chamber)".
- "South Korea fines Microsoft $32 m". BBC News. 2005-12-07. Retrieved 2018-09-14.
- "Will Microsoft Pull out of Korea?, The Korea Times". times.hankooki.com. 2005-12-07. Archived from the original on 2005-12-11. Retrieved 2018-09-14.
- "公正取引委員会、マイクロソフトへの勧告内容をPDFファイルで公開". Impress PC watch. 1998-11-24. Retrieved 2019-03-31.
- Castle, Stephen; Jolly, David (2008-02-28). "Europe Fines Microsoft $1.3 Billion". The New York Times.
- "EU fines Microsoft record $1.4bn". BBC News. 2008-02-27.
- "Spain begins antitrust investigation into Microsoft". 2011-09-20. Retrieved 2011-11-24.
- "Spain investigating Microsoft for alleged license breaches". 2011-09-21. Retrieved 2011-11-24.
- "Newly Released Documents Shed Light on Microsoft Tactics". Archived from the original on 2009-06-29. Retrieved 2009-01-27.
- "Microsoft's legal bill 'too big'". BBC News. 2004-05-14. Retrieved 2010-01-05.
- "San Francisco judge cuts Microsoft legal fees to $100M". Archived from the original on 2004-09-24. Retrieved 2009-01-27.
- "As the Government encourages the use of open-source software, Microsoft launches an investigation into e-government (Lithuanian)". Retrieved 2006-05-23.
- Nichols, Scott (2008-02-25). "Lawsuit Over "Vista Capable" Labels on PCs Given OK by Judge". PC World.[dead link]
- Keizer, Gregg (2008-03-10). "Microsoft Challenges Users' 'Vista Capable' Lawsuit". PC World.
- "Microsoft Settles Iowa Lawsuit". The San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2008-09-24.
- Lambert, Emily (2007-02-14). "www.forbes.com/2007/02/14/microsoft-lawsuit-iowa-tech-cz_el_0214microsoft.html". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2013-01-23.
- Nagourney, Adam. "The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia". International Herald Tribune. Retrieved 2012-10-19.
- "www.post-gazette.com/pg/07109/779145-96.stm". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 2007-04-19.
- Keizer, Gregg (2009-09-03). "Appeals court grants Microsoft reprieve in Word case". Computerworld. Retrieved 2012-10-19.
- "Microsoft sues U.S. Customs office to force Google phone ban". ZDNet. Retrieved 2013-07-12.
- "Microsoft ordered to pay $1.52B in patent suit". CNN. 2007-02-22. Retrieved 2007-02-23.
- Markoff, John. "Intel and Microsoft Added to Apple Lawsuit", New York Times, 1995-02-10
- Duncan, Geoff. "Apple Sues Intel, Microsoft – Again' Archived 2009-04-26 at the Wayback Machine, TidBITS, 1995-02-13
- Mace, Michael. "An Open Letter to the Computing Community", archived from apple.com, 1995-02-09
- Mace, Michael. "Second open letter from Apple", archived from apple.com
- Lea, Graham (1999-02-01). "Maritz on... Apple". The Register.
- Chalmers, Rachel. "Apple And Microsoft: Jobs Barefoot Under A Tree", Computergram International, 1999-01-26
- Kawamoto, Dawn; Heskett, Ben; Ricciuti, Mike. "MS to invest $150 million in Apple", CNET News, 1997-08-06
- "Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement", FindLaw, 1997-08-05
- Eran, Daniel "Mac Office, $150 Million, and the Story Nobody Covered", Roughly Drafted, Sunday, 2007-03-11
- Every, David K., , MacKiDo, 1999
- "Q&A: Microsoft vs AOL". BBC News. 2003-05-30. Retrieved 2010-05-05.
- Fischer, Ben (2007-03-28). "Entrepreneur sued by Microsoft says he was unaware of alleged infractions". Retrieved 2007-03-28.
- Doris Hajewski. "AtomicPark operator ordered to pay Microsoft $1.2 million", Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2009-04-02. Retrieved 2015-01-22.
- "Be Incorporated Files Suit Against Microsoft for Violations of Antitrust Laws". 2002-02-19.
- "Bristol: Microsoft unfairly withheld NT code". ZDNet. 1999-06-04. Retrieved 2009-07-03.
Bristol claimed Microsoft raised prices on the contracts unfairly and offered only a sliver of the code. But Microsoft said NT 4 and 5 are far more advanced versions of the operating system and should cost more. Bristol makes a product called Wind/U, which lets developers port programs written for Windows to other operating systems such as Unix.
- "Bristol: Microsoft aggressive, not anti-competitive". ZDNet UK. 1999-06-07. Retrieved 2009-07-03.
Bristol sued Microsoft in August, arguing that it illegally withheld source code and used its dominant position with Windows to move into other markets. Prior to filing suit, Bristol had a three-year contract to license Windows NT version 3. But Bristol claimed that when it came time to renew the contract and include versions 4 and 5, Microsoft illegally raised prices.
- "Bristol Technology v. Microsoft". Tech Law Journal. Retrieved 2009-07-03.
- "Microsoft Ordered To Pay $1 Million In Bristol Case". CRN. 2000-09-01. Archived from the original on 2013-01-20. Retrieved 2009-07-03.
"Microsoft's deceptive acts constitute affirmative acts of misconduct which were designed to injure those to whom they were directed, and wantonly risked serious injury, albeit of a purely economic nature," Hall said in her ruling.
- Susman, Stephen Daily; Eskridge III, Charles R.; Southwick, James T.; Susman, Harry P.; Folse III, Parker C.; Palumbo, Ralph H.; Harris, Matthew R.; McCune, Philip S.; Engel, Lynn M.; Hill, Stephen J.; Tibbitts, Ryan E. (April 1999). "In the United States District Court - District of Utah, Central Division - Caldera, Inc. vs. Microsoft Corporation - Consolidated statement of facts in support of its responses to motions for summary judgement by Microsoft Corporation - Case No. 2:96CV 0645B" (Court document). Caldera, Inc. Archived from the original on 2018-08-05. Retrieved 2018-08-05.
- Susman, Stephen Daily; Eskridge III, Charles R.; Susman, Harry P.; Southwick, James T.; Folse III, Parker C.; Borchers, Timothy K.; Palumbo, Ralph H.; Harris, Matthew R.; Engel, Lynn M.; McCune, Philip S.; Locker, Lawrence C.; Wheeler, Max D.; Hill, Stephen J.; Tibbitts, Ryan E. (May 1999). "In the United States District Court - District of Utah, Central Division - Caldera, Inc. vs. Microsoft Corporation - Case No. 2:96CV 0645B - Caldera, Inc.'s Memorandum in opposition to defendant's motion for partial Summary Judgment on plaintiff's "Technological Tying" claim" (Court document). Caldera, Inc. Archived from the original on 2018-08-05. Retrieved 2018-08-05.
- Ball, Lyle (1999-04-28). "Caldera submits evidence to counter Microsoft's motions for partial summary judgment" (Press release). Caldera, Inc. Archived from the original on 2018-08-05. Retrieved 2018-08-05.
- Schulman, Andrew (September 1993). "Examining the Windows AARD Detection Code - A serious message--and the code that produced it". Dr. Dobb's Journal. Miller Freeman, Inc. 18 (9): 42, 44–48, 89. #204. Archived from the original on 2005-12-10. Retrieved 2013-10-05.
- Schulman, Andrew; Brown, Ralf D.; Maxey, David; Michels, Raymond J.; Kyle, Jim (1994) [November 1993]. Undocumented DOS: A programmer's guide to reserved MS-DOS functions and data structures - expanded to include MS-DOS 6, Novell DOS and Windows 3.1 (2 ed.). Addison Wesley. p. 11. ISBN 0-201-63287-X. ISBN 978-0-201-63287-3. (xviii+856+vi pages, 3.5-inch floppy) Errata: 
- Meyer, Egbert (1998-08-27). "Microsoft: Vorgetäuschter Bug legte DR-DOS lahm". Heise online (in German). Verlag Heinz Heise. Archived from the original on 2018-07-14. Retrieved 2018-07-14. 
- Lea, Graham (1998-03-23). "Cebit: Caldera shows Windows on DR-DOS, denying MS claims". CeBIT news. Hanover, Germany. Archived from the original on 2017-06-24. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
- Romano, Mike (1998-09-16). "The mouse that roared. Forget the feds. It's up to an obscure Utah company to prove what we already know: that Microsoft is a monopoly". Seattle Weekly. Archived from the original on 2017-06-24. Retrieved 2017-06-24.
Furthermore, Caldera claims that Microsoft's flagship product, Windows 95, is nothing more than an "artificial tie" between its MS-DOS operating system and Windows graphic interface with no business justification other than to keep competing underlying operating systems—like Caldera's DR-DOS—off the market. To prove its point, Caldera will soon release a piece of demonstration software called "WinBolt," which, it says, will allow users to install the Windows 95 interface atop DR-DOS. The demo will show, Caldera says, that there is no significant technological advancement, or justified business efficiency, to the combination of MS-DOS with Windows in Windows 95.
- Lea, Graham (1999-11-05). "Win95 – is it just Dos 7 plus Windows 4 after all? The judge thinks it could be ..." The Register. Archived from the original on 2016-11-25. Retrieved 2016-11-25.
- Paul, Matthias R. (2002-04-10). "[fd-dev] HMA access from TSR". Archived from the original on 2017-09-09. Retrieved 2017-09-09.
... MS-DOS 7.0+ ... introduced a ... for the most part undocumented RMD data structure usually located in the HMA. The kernel collects and records configuration and Real Mode Driver data during boot ... and stores this information in a ... complicated ... data structure. ... it is only used to a very limited extent, ... leaving room ... beyond the technical side ... because nothing of the interesting stuff is documented ...
- Diedrich, Oliver (1998-07-30). "Caldera erhält den Quellcode von Windows 95". Heise online (in German). Verlag Heinz Heise. Archived from the original on 2018-07-14. Retrieved 2018-07-14. 
- Diedrich, Oliver (1998-08-27). "icrosoft hat den Windows-Quellcode verbummelt". Heise online (in German). Verlag Heinz Heise. Archived from the original on 2018-07-14. Retrieved 2018-07-14. 
- "Exhibits to Microsoft's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment in Novell WordPerfect Case". Groklaw. 2009-11-23. Archived from the original on 2013-08-21. Retrieved 2011-10-22.
- Burt, Thomas W.; Sparks, Bryan Wayne (2000-01-07). "Settlement agreement - Microsoft Corporation and Caldera, Inc. reach agreement to settle antitrust lawsuit" (PDF) (Court document). Case 1:05-cv-01087-JFM, Document 104-8, Filed 2009-11-13; NOV00107061-NOV00107071; LT2288-LT2298; Lan12S311263739.1; Exhibit A. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2017-07-04. Retrieved 2018-08-03.
[…] Microsoft will pay to Caldera, by wire transfer in accordance with written instructions provided by Caldera, the amount of two hundred eighty million dollars ($280,000,000), as full settlement of all claims or potential claims covered by this agreement […](NB. This document of the Caldera v. Microsoft case was an exhibit in the later Comes v. Microsoft case.)
- Wallis, Richard J.; Aeschbacher, Steven J.; Bettilyon, Mark M.; Webb, Jr., G. Stewar; Tulchin, David B.; Holley, Steven L. (2009-11-13). "Microsoft's memorandum in opposition to Novell's renewed motion for summary judgement on Microsoft's affirmative defenses and in support of Microsoft's cross-motion for summary judgement" (PDF) (Court document). United States District Court, District of Maryland. p. 16. Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action No. JFM-05-1087. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2019-05-24. Retrieved 2018-08-03.
- Gomes, Lee (2000-01-11). "Microsoft Will Pay $275 Million To Settle Lawsuit From Caldera". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2016-12-31. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
Microsoft Corp. agreed to pay an estimated $275 million to settle an antitrust lawsuit by Caldera Inc., heading off a trial that was likely to air nasty allegations from a decade ago. […] Microsoft and Caldera, a small Salt Lake City software company that brought the suit in 1996, didn't disclose terms of the settlement. Microsoft, though, said it would take a charge of three cents a share for the agreement in the fiscal third quarter ending March 31 […] the company has roughly 5.5 billion shares outstanding […]
- Lettice, John (2003-05-22). "SCO pulps Caldera-MS trial archives - History is toilet tissue…". The Register. Archived from the original on 2018-09-09. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
- Orlowski, Andrew (2003-02-22). "Microsoft's dirty tricks archive vanishes - What don't they want us to see?". The Register. Archived from the original on 2018-07-14. Retrieved 2018-07-14.
- "Opera releases "Bork" edition". Opera Software (Press release). 2003-02-14.
- Festa, Paul (2003-05-22). "Opera wails about MSN problem". CNET.
- "Sendo & Microsoft – it all ends in tears". The Inquirer.
- "Microsoft's $8 Million Goodbye to Spyglass". BusinessWeek.
- "Microsoft Loses Patent Suit". Archived from the original on 2007-09-29. Retrieved 2009-01-27.
- Microsoft Loses Case On Patent By Lawrence M. Fisher, Published: 1994-02-24
- "Microsoft violated Chinese company's rights: court". Taipei Times. Agence France-Presse. 2009-11-18. Retrieved 2009-11-20.
- Lee, Melanie; Durfee, Don; Geoghegan, Ian (2009-11-18). "China orders Microsoft to halt some Windows sales". Reuters. Retrieved 2009-11-20.
- Hille, Kathrin (2009-11-17). "Chinese court rules against Microsoft". Financial Times. Retrieved 2009-11-20.
- "SimSun – Version 2.10". Microsoft Typography. Microsoft. 2009. Retrieved 2009-11-20.
- "Microsoft ordered to pay Alcatel-Lucent $1.52B for infringement". Physorg.com. 2007-02-23. Archived from the original on 2007-02-25. Retrieved 2007-02-24.
- "ITC to rule on Microsoft, Alcatel-Lucent IPR spat". DSP DesignLine. Retrieved 2018-09-14.
- "Microsoft's Court Battles With Alcatel-Lucent Far From Over – Patents – InformationWeek". Informationweek.com. Retrieved 2018-09-14.
- "Message from a Burst chairman". November 2004. Archived from the original on 2007-10-23. Retrieved 2009-01-27.
- "Microsoft Corp. Licenses Burst.com Patents & Settles Suit". Archived from the original on 2008-03-04.
- "Allchin named, as proof of MS email destruction policy is sought". The Register. 2004-05-24.
- "Eolas' web patent nullified". The Register. 2004-03-05.
- "Microsoft sued for infringing patent on Live Tiles". The Verge. Retrieved 2012-10-31.
- "APPLE COMPUTER, INC. v. MICROSOFT CORP., 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994)". Earthlink. Archived from the original on 2007-12-14. Retrieved 2012-10-19.
- Kotadia, Munir (2004-01-19). "Software giant threatens mikerowesoft". ZDNet. Retrieved 2008-10-01.
- Barker, Gary (2004-01-21). "Teenager takes on a corporate monster". The Age. Melbourne. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- "Boy swaps MikeRoweSoft for Xbox". BBC News. 2004-01-26. Retrieved 2008-10-01.
- "Total Commander - Name change". Ghisler. Retrieved 2009-06-05.
- "wxWindows Name Change".
- " Nano-X Frequently Asked Questions". Microwindows. 2010-01-24. Retrieved 2012-10-19.
- Keizer, Gregg (2008-10-20). "Woman sues Microsoft over Xbox 360 'red ring of death'". Computerworld. Archived from the original on 2007-03-02. Retrieved 2009-11-20.
- "Microsoft Gets Sued For Red Rings". IGN. 2008-10-16. Retrieved 2012-10-19.
- Loftus, Jack (2008-10-18). "Californians Sue Over Xbox 360 Flaw". PC World. GamePro. Retrieved 2009-11-20.