UK tribunal says reselling Microsoft licenses is A-OK
- Reference: 1763120714
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2025/11/14/valuelicensing_microsoft_judgment/
- Source link:
The [1]judgment follows UK reseller ValueLicensing lodging a 2021 [2]claim against the Windows giant over clauses in contracts allegedly aimed at stopping customers from reselling perpetual licenses. The Derby-based reseller sued Microsoft for £270 million in damages over claims of lost business.
The dispute rumbled back and forth until Microsoft made a surprising [3]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.
[4]
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, nor was there anything wrong with the resale of licenses.
[5]
[6]
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 [7]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 [8]Copyright and Information Society Directive .
In a unanimous judgment, the Competition Appeal Tribunal sided with ValueLicensing and what The Register has heard described as Microsoft's "Hail Mary" appears not to have worked.
[9]Tribunal wonders if Microsoft has found a legal hero after pivot to copyright gambit
[10]Pre-owned software trial kicks off in UK as Microsoft pushes resale ban
[11]Microsoft facing multibillion legal claim over how it sells software
[12]Microsoft's spat with ValueLicensing limps toward 2026 showdown
Jonathan Horley, managing director of ValueLicensing, told The Register : "ValueLicensing has always believed it was running a legitimate business underpinned by the principles of the European Software Directive and the UsedSoft judgment at the ECJ.
"This judgment confirms these principles, which legitimately allowed ValueLicensing to save its customers money on used Microsoft software. Now these preliminary issues have been decided, we look forward to continuing the claim against Microsoft."
[13]
A Microsoft spokesperson told El Reg : "We disagree with the decision and intend to appeal it."
Redmond is facing a similar [14]class action issued by Alexander Wolfson that could result in a multibillion-pound payout for UK customers. At the time, a spokesperson said: "This new collective action is based on the same unsubstantiated claims regarding second-hand software licensing that have been litigated for several years in another case."
We hesitate to call it "precedent," but Microsoft's pivot and the ensuing judgment haven't helped its cause.
[15]
There's plenty of road left, but pending the inevitable appeal, Microsoft may have just blown its own toes off. ®
Get our [16]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.catribunal.org.uk/judgments/15705722-t-jjh-enterprises-limited-trading-valuelicensing-v-microsoft-corporation-and-2
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/08/valuelicensing_microsoft_lawsuit/
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/20/microsoft_valuelicensing_tribunal/
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/applications&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aRdgKqnkjdKtgQOODnQHFQAAAVI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/applications&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aRdgKqnkjdKtgQOODnQHFQAAAVI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/applications&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aRdgKqnkjdKtgQOODnQHFQAAAVI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/the-end-of-the-usedsoft-case-and-its-implications-for-used-software-licences
[8] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2001/29/oj/eng
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/20/microsoft_valuelicensing_tribunal/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2025/09/08/microsoft_valuelicensing_latest/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/13/microsoft_licensing_lawsuit/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/06/valuelicensing_microsoft_trial_date/
[13] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/applications&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aRdgKqnkjdKtgQOODnQHFQAAAVI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/13/microsoft_licensing_lawsuit/
[15] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/applications&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aRdgKqnkjdKtgQOODnQHFQAAAVI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[16] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Common sense prevails?
Move from Cisco to Unifi - It's Cisco Meraki with more features but without the license fees and stupid hardware prices.
Re: Common sense prevails?
Definitely agree regarding Unifi over Cisco for networking, even if monitoring has to be implemented using undocumented APIs.
Got a tip for a replacement for the WSA stuff? You can tell from the reports that almost nothing has been done on the software side since 2008.
Re: Common sense prevails?
Whether it's legal or not depends very much on your legal system. In general, in Europe you have extensive rights to digital products – even copyrighted ones, which is why it's both legal to make a backup copy or resell something.
In America, licences can be much more restrictive and American companies (and many American courts) think that their interpretation of the law is universal.
"Volume licensing" deals were such a scam that Microsoft fought tooth and nail to keep them as "commercial secrets". The idea behind the discount was not only to encourage volume purchasing but ensure that every machine came with Windows™. Anti-competitive – for a long time it was part of the agreement that other operating system could not be installed as well – and anti-consumer: you paid for the licence even if you didn't want to use it but were not allowed to resell it. What's not to like?
Copyright?
The notion that copyright on fonts and icons makes reselling illegal has always been nonsense and MS knows it.
If it were illegal then so would selling a second hand book (obviously copyright) or anything at all that featured any unique and/or distinguishing features, like Lego or a even a particular brand of car - what would stop BMW saying you can’t resell one if it’s cars because it happens to have a copyrighted BMW badge on the front? It would be a ridiculous situation
Re: Copyright?
The "Copyright" bullshit pivot was such an idiotic move. What the hell were they thinking? Proper head meeting desk moment.
Re: Copyright?
What the hell were they thinking?
That they'd tried everything else and have, compared to their opponent, an effectively infinite amount of money?
Re: Copyright?
>what would stop BMW saying you can’t resell one if it’s cars because it happens to have a copyrighted BMW badge on the front?
I think the MS argument was more akin to BMW saying you can't resell the BMW you purchased because the tyres carry the copyrighted Pirelli logo.
Tried to find their offerings on their site - no links to that, or anything. That's a really good way to not get in hot water.
Stuff Microsoft
Do as i've just done and switch to Linux (Zorin os 18 Pro) and haven't look back.
" underpinned by the principles of the European Software Directive and the UsedSoft judgment at the ECJ "
Note - European .
And most likely still on the UK statute book.
"UsedSoft judgment at the ECJ"
Of which the UK is still a member
For the moment... That's sort of the point I was aiming at.
I feel it
was more like m$ contacting the reseller and saying
"Give us a % and we'll leave you alone"
To which the reseller rightly said
"Go away"*
Although m$ seem to be trying what any good US company does which is take your competitors to court until they run out of money and give in...
*other phrases are available
MS Licensing idiocy
So I have installed LibreOffice at home and am in the process of installing it on all work systems. However... I do some work for a local 3try level institution. They give away a 'free' copy of MS Office, and it's installed on school devices. Such as my school laptop. I have a 'personal' OneDrive (30 GB) and two 'business/education' OneDrives (1 TB each). LibreOffice works on files in all three OneDrives, and in Apple iCloud (2 TB) and in Google Drive (15 GB) and in DropBox (2.5 GB). Back when I had a 'personal' copy of MS Office, terminated years ago, it worked in my personal OneDrive, and, with effort, in iCloud and DropBox; I didn't have Google Drive then. It would complain that I needed to 'log in' when trying to access files on the 'business/education' OneDrives, and no, the 'personal' login wouldn't work. The school MS Office install will access files on the local drive, on the appropriate 'business/education' OneDrive, but insists on getting a 'login' on the other 'business/education' OneDrive and the 'personal' OneDrive, and no, the school login won't do.
MS wants me to get a fully installed, fully licensed, copy of Office 365 for my 'personal' OneDrive and a different one for the other 'business/education' OneDrive. This is not going to happen. LibreOffice works. Apple iWorks works (for certain values of 'working' for Numbers, possibly the worst app ever perpetuated by Apple). WPS works. WordPerfect Office works. I use MS Office on school equipment because the school insists; I use LibreOffice and iWorks (ok, Pages and Keynote, I really hate Numbers) for everything else. If LibreOffice worked on iPadOS I suspect that I'd stop using iWorks. For reasons of ideology LibreOffice is not available on iPadOS; Collabra is; Collabra is kinda-sorta a fork of LibreOffice only not as good, the day that LibreOffice works on iPadOS is the day that Collabra gets banished into The Outer Darkness, but I'm not holding my breath waiting. There will NEVER be new installs of MS Office on my personal systems, or at the office. The office OneDrive will probably go away sometime soon. I don't care. In the meantime I use MS Office on school equipment at school, and only at school. Notably certain 'portals' can detect if a file was done in, say, DOCX format using LibreOffice or Pages, and will reject them, so the most common use of MS Office is to open files I worked on using sensible software in MS Office, do a save as, and submit. And that means putting the file onto the school OneDrive, or MS Office will start bleating about needing a login.
MS is doing their very best to attempt to use their market position to try to force their crap, including CoPileOfShit, onto all systems. Not happening here. What they are succeeding in doing is to make some users avoid MS software at almost all costs.
The real reason why MS is screaming about reselling is that they don't get any money from the resale, and older versions aren't as restricted as newer versions, and, most especially, older versions don't have any CoPileOfShit. The harder they squeeze, the more users slip through their fingers. Bite me, Grand Moff Nadalla.
M$ get told to do one
In the words of Battery Sgt Major Williams*:
Oh, dear, how sad, never mind.
* For those on the west side of the big pond, a very politically incorrect 1970s sitcon called "It ain't half hot mum" set in India during WW2.
Resale of volume licences
>" there was nothing preventing the subdivision and resale of Windows and Office licenses acquired under Microsoft's Enterprise Agreements"
I suspect resellers are going to have to maintain good records of sales to confirm that they have only sold the same number of individual licenses as were in the original volume licence.
This also raises an issue: multiple users will have legitimately purchased the same licence key. The only way you have to confirm your ownership is your receipt bearing the licence key(s) you have purchased and been allocated by the reseller..
Common sense prevails?
Admittedly, I'm no expert in law ... particularly "the spirit of it". But - I have to say - this all feels like mere common sense prevailing - no?
I've always tried to pay what's due. I've found that impossible (for budget reasons) with several charitable causes I help look after the IT for - second hand Cisco hardware from eBay, still has plenty of physical life in it - but I can't get firmware updates - unless I'm willing to part with epic money. So I buy another (dead - for "spares/repairs") router/switch with newer firmware - and treat that as "fair".
Kinguin I think claimed a similar victory in the EU? I feel like it's greyer - clearly some (a lot?) of the licenses on there were bought under volume licensing agreements or whatever.
But then, again, I have to be honest ... maybe if these companies charged £50 rather than £250 ... ? It bemuses me that for Windows Pro (for example), I can get a second-hand "digitally entitled" laptop from work for less than the Pro license itself. For charitable purposes, the charity pricing schemes are great in principle - but require a lot of paperwork and hoop-jumping (especially if your charity is in any way religious or otherwise standing for "particularly conservative values").
Ho-hum.
Anyone got any advice? Am I missing the obvious?