Microsoft does not want ValueLicensing CEO anywhere near its confidentiality ring
(2023/10/10)
- Reference: 1696932071
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2023/10/10/microsoft_valuelicensing_update/
- Source link:
Documents from Microsoft's £270 million ($331 million) legal spat with Brit reseller ValueLicensing have revealed squabbling behind the scenes over what can be disclosed and who should be in the circle of trust.
As a reminder, the case revolves around allegations by ValueLicensing (VL) that Microsoft added some clauses into its contracts to stop customers from selling on surplus perpetual licenses for Microsoft products. Companies such as VL sold on these licenses until what it describes as "anticompetitive contract clauses" showed up in 2016, allegedly replete with enticing discounts for switching to a subscription model.
In relation to the license restrictions in question, Microsoft told The Reg back in [1]April 2022 , "We have eliminated the restriction but continue to offer the discount on cloud subscriptions." VL, however, reckons that the result of Microsoft's actions are higher prices.
[2]
During a Case Management Conference held by the Competition Appeal Tribunal yesterday, both sides gave an account of issues that need to be resolved before the case could go to trial.
[3]
[4]
One of these issues concerns the confidentiality ring – a group of people permitted to view confidential information. According to skeleton arguments seen by The Register , ValueLicensing (VL) wants its CEO, Jonathan Horley, included along with a pair of its employees, and Microsoft most certainly does not.
The two sides aren't so far apart on the matter. Both agree that a ring is required since all manner of confidential documentation will be used during proceedings. However, while VL has attempted to get Horley included – even in an "outer" ring – Microsoft retorted that "Mr Horley is a key individual in the running of VL's business and therefore 'precisely the kind of person in respect of whom the concerns arise that justify a confidentiality ring in the first place'."
[5]
An interesting take. VL questioned if Microsoft might be suggesting that it regards the company as a competitor. And so the arguing has continued.
[6]Judge rejects another Microsoft appeal against surplus license reseller suit
[7]Judge dismisses Microsoft's challenges: ValueLicensing case to proceed in Britain
[8]UK suit over reselling surplus Microsoft licenses rolls on
[9]Brit reseller given 2022 court date for £270m Microsoft SaaS licence sueball's first hearing
Other items worthy of note in the skeleton arguments include revisiting Microsoft's desire for a split trial and the timetable for disclosure. Microsoft would like to get cracking with the latter, while VL appears to favor a more thoughtful and investigative approach regarding what needs to be disclosed.
ValueLicensing is asking for £270 million ($331 million) for the profits it claims it lost as a consequence of Microsoft's actions.
For its part, Microsoft has attempted to have the case fundamentally changed. [10]In July last year , the company attempted to have its UK arm removed from the claim as well as to shift the hearing to Ireland. The request was rejected, as was its appeal on the matter. ®
Get our [11]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/01/valuelicensing_microsoft_latest/
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZSV1Jbn53V2XZ5B2jKV2PgAAAMM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZSV1Jbn53V2XZ5B2jKV2PgAAAMM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZSV1Jbn53V2XZ5B2jKV2PgAAAMM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZSV1Jbn53V2XZ5B2jKV2PgAAAMM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/08/microsoft_valuelicensing/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/20/valuelicensing_microsoft_court/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/01/valuelicensing_microsoft_latest/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/26/microsoft_valuelicensing_hearing_date_2022/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/08/microsoft_valuelicensing
[11] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
As a reminder, the case revolves around allegations by ValueLicensing (VL) that Microsoft added some clauses into its contracts to stop customers from selling on surplus perpetual licenses for Microsoft products. Companies such as VL sold on these licenses until what it describes as "anticompetitive contract clauses" showed up in 2016, allegedly replete with enticing discounts for switching to a subscription model.
In relation to the license restrictions in question, Microsoft told The Reg back in [1]April 2022 , "We have eliminated the restriction but continue to offer the discount on cloud subscriptions." VL, however, reckons that the result of Microsoft's actions are higher prices.
[2]
During a Case Management Conference held by the Competition Appeal Tribunal yesterday, both sides gave an account of issues that need to be resolved before the case could go to trial.
[3]
[4]
One of these issues concerns the confidentiality ring – a group of people permitted to view confidential information. According to skeleton arguments seen by The Register , ValueLicensing (VL) wants its CEO, Jonathan Horley, included along with a pair of its employees, and Microsoft most certainly does not.
The two sides aren't so far apart on the matter. Both agree that a ring is required since all manner of confidential documentation will be used during proceedings. However, while VL has attempted to get Horley included – even in an "outer" ring – Microsoft retorted that "Mr Horley is a key individual in the running of VL's business and therefore 'precisely the kind of person in respect of whom the concerns arise that justify a confidentiality ring in the first place'."
[5]
An interesting take. VL questioned if Microsoft might be suggesting that it regards the company as a competitor. And so the arguing has continued.
[6]Judge rejects another Microsoft appeal against surplus license reseller suit
[7]Judge dismisses Microsoft's challenges: ValueLicensing case to proceed in Britain
[8]UK suit over reselling surplus Microsoft licenses rolls on
[9]Brit reseller given 2022 court date for £270m Microsoft SaaS licence sueball's first hearing
Other items worthy of note in the skeleton arguments include revisiting Microsoft's desire for a split trial and the timetable for disclosure. Microsoft would like to get cracking with the latter, while VL appears to favor a more thoughtful and investigative approach regarding what needs to be disclosed.
ValueLicensing is asking for £270 million ($331 million) for the profits it claims it lost as a consequence of Microsoft's actions.
For its part, Microsoft has attempted to have the case fundamentally changed. [10]In July last year , the company attempted to have its UK arm removed from the claim as well as to shift the hearing to Ireland. The request was rejected, as was its appeal on the matter. ®
Get our [11]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/01/valuelicensing_microsoft_latest/
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZSV1Jbn53V2XZ5B2jKV2PgAAAMM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZSV1Jbn53V2XZ5B2jKV2PgAAAMM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZSV1Jbn53V2XZ5B2jKV2PgAAAMM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZSV1Jbn53V2XZ5B2jKV2PgAAAMM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/08/microsoft_valuelicensing/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/20/valuelicensing_microsoft_court/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/01/valuelicensing_microsoft_latest/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/26/microsoft_valuelicensing_hearing_date_2022/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/08/microsoft_valuelicensing
[11] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: MS is a monopoly
Anonymous Coward
MS is a monopoly
Proudly MS free since 2016
Those seem like contradictory statements. Since there are alternatives, MS can't be a described as a monopoly.
Re: MS is a monopoly
alain williams
A monopoly can have competition:
In law, a monopoly is a business entity that has significant market power, that is, the power to charge overly high prices, which is associated with a decrease in social surplus.
See [1]wikipedia
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
Re: MS is a monopoly
ExampleOne
The depends on how the market is defined.
The fact someone can choose to opt out of a market completely does not mean that market can't be a monopoly.
Re: MS is a monopoly
Paul Crawford
Strictly speaking it is an oligopoly, but given MS comes pre-loaded on the vast majority of PCs and laptops, and many businesses and government organisations mandate documents in its propitiatory formats, it is effectively a monopoly.
Re: MS is a monopoly
NoneSuch
MS is NOT a monopoly, it is a Briar Patch.
Easy to get in, very difficult to get out.
VL
Marty McFly
Anyone else remember when a Microsoft "VL" referred to a "Volume License" rather than a "Value License" ?
It was so much easier to get stuff done in IT back then. Install, drop in a license key (or script it in), and get to work. No extra BS.
MS is a monopoly
and the sooner it is broken up the better.
Proudly MS free since 2016