View source for Microsoft litigation

{{More citations needed|date=May 2024}}

{{Short description|Legal action against Microsoft}}
'''[[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.

==Governmental==
In its 2008 [[annual report]], Microsoft stated:<ref>{{cite web |author-last=Asay |author-first=Matt |url=https://www.cnet.com/culture/microsofts-annual-report-open-source-mental-block/ |title=Microsoft's annual report: Open-source mental block &#124; The Open Road |work=[[CNET News]] |publisher=News.cnet.com |date=2008-08-03 |access-date=2012-10-19}}</ref>

{{cquote|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.}}

===Antitrust===
In the 1990s, Microsoft adopted exclusionary licensing under which PC manufacturers were required to pay for an MS-DOS license even when the system was 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.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/longterm/microsoft/stories/1993/launch082193.htm |title=Justice to Launch Probe of Microsoft |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |date=1998-10-20 |access-date=2010-05-12}}</ref><ref name="Gavil_2014_Antitrust"/> 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]].<ref>Wallace, James (1997), Overdrive, [[John Wiley & Sons]]. {{ISBN|0-471-18041-6}}.</ref>

A Microsoft purchase of [[Intuit]] was scuttled in 1994 due to antitrust concerns that Microsoft would be purchasing a major competitor.<ref>{{cite news |title=Justice Sues to Block Microsoft Acquisition |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/longterm/microsoft/stories/1995/quicken042895.htm |access-date=2010-07-09 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |date=1998-10-20}}</ref>

After bundling the [[Internet Explorer]] [[web browser]] into its [[Microsoft Windows|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:<ref name="findingsoffact">{{cite web |url=http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm |title=U.S. vs. Microsoft findings of fact|date=14 August 2015 }}</ref>

<blockquote>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)</blockquote>

The findings of fact go on to explain the nature of the "barrier to entry":<ref name="findingsoffact"/>

<blockquote>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)</blockquote>

The proposed remedy (dividing Microsoft into two companies) was never applied.<ref>
{{
   Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/technology/judge-orders-microsoft-split-into-two-companies.html |
   title=Judge Orders Microsoft Split Into Two Companies |
 work=The New York Times |
   date=2000-06-07 |
   access-date=2022-12-28
}}</ref> The judge who decided the original case [[United States v. Microsoft Corp. (2001)|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.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.courttv.com/archive/news/2001/0906/microsoft_ap.html |agency=Associated Press |title=Bush administration no longer interested in breaking up Microsoft |publisher=Court TV |date=2001-09-06 |access-date=2007-02-06 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070929210548/http://www.courttv.com/archive/news/2001/0906/microsoft_ap.html |archive-date=2007-09-29}}</ref> Eighteen days later, Judge Kollar-Kotelly ordered the justice department and Microsoft to "engage in discussions seven days a week, 24 hours a day."<ref>{{cite news |url=https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9504E5D6163DF93AA1575AC0A9679C8B63 |agency=Associated Press |title=Judge Orders Talks to Settle Microsoft Case |date=2001-09-29 |access-date=2007-05-24 |work=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_42/c3753026.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20011123153812/http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_42/c3753026.htm |url-status=dead |archive-date=November 23, 2001 |title=States, Microsoft Rivals Prepare for Next Antitrust Battle |date=2003-05-06 |access-date=2007-06-11}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1659221,00.asp |title=Trustbusters |date=2001-10-15 |access-date=2007-06-11}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/business/2390189.stm |title=Microsoft wins battle but war continues |date=2002-11-01 |access-date=2007-06-11 |work=[[BBC News]] |author-first=Kevin |author-last=Anderson}}</ref> Attorney General Ashcroft, however, denied that the events of September 11 had any effect on the outcome.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2001/11/48118 |title=MS: Everybody's Got an Opinion |date=2001-11-03 |access-date=2007-06-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121026105807/http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2001/11/48118 |archive-date=2012-10-26}}</ref> Microsoft subsequently reached a settlement with the [[United States Department of Justice|Department of Justice]] and some of the states which brought suit against it.{{Citation needed|date=July 2010}} Several{{Quantify|date=July 2010}} [[class-action lawsuit]]s filed after the conviction are still pending.{{When|date=July 2010}}{{Citation needed|date=July 2010}}

In early 2002, Microsoft proposed to settle the private lawsuits by donating $1 billion (~${{Format price|{{Inflation|index=US-GDP|value=1000000000|start_year=2002}}}} in {{Inflation/year|US-GDP}}) [[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 gain|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.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-808241.html |title=Judge tosses Microsoft schools settlement |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120718105823/http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-808241.html |archive-date=2012-07-18 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

[[File:Belgique - Bruxelles - Schuman - Berlaymont - 01.jpg|thumb|Headquarters of the European Commission, which has imposed several fines on Microsoft]]
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.{{Citation needed|date=July 2010}} 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.{{Citation needed|date=July 2010}} Separate investigations into alleged abuses of the server market were also ongoing at the same time.{{Citation needed|date=July 2010}} 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.{{Citation needed|date=July 2010}} 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 characterized the much delayed protocol licensing as unreasonable, called Microsoft "non-compliant" and still violating antitrust law in 2007, and said that its [[Reasonable and Non Discriminatory Licensing|RAND]] terms were above market prices; in addition, they said [[software patent]]s covering the code "lack significant innovation", which Microsoft and the EC had agreed would determine licensing fees.<ref>{{cite web |title=Microsoft asks EC for more details on licensing fees |url=http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft-asks-EC-for-more-details-on-licensing-fees/2100-1014_3-6178393.html |publisher=[[CBS Interactive Inc.]] |access-date=2013-12-09}}</ref> Microsoft responded by saying, that other government agencies had found "considerable innovation".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.zdnet.co.uk/itmanagement/0,1000000308,39286127,00.htm |title=EC threatens Microsoft with more fines}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=EC accuses Microsoft of source code song and dance |url=http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=29294 |url-status=unfit |access-date=2009-01-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070517050343/http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=29294 |archive-date=2007-05-17}}</ref> Microsoft appealed the facts and ruling to the European Court of First Instance with hearings in September 2006.

{{Anchor|Comes v Microsoft}}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 [[Monopoly|monopolistic]] practices.<ref>''Comes v. Microsoft Corp.'', 646 N.W.2d 440 (2002); see also [http://www.zelle.com/news-updates-13.html ''$180 Million Microsoft Iowa Antitrust Settlement Results in Cash Benefits to Consumers''], {{smallcaps|Zelle LLP}} (2007-08-14).</ref> 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.<ref>''Comes v. Microsoft Corp.'', 646 N.W.2d 440 (2002)</ref> On [[Remand (court procedure)|remand]], the trial court certified two classes of plaintiffs, and the Iowa Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the class certification.<ref>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).</ref> In August 2007, the parties ultimately reached a settlement valued at $179.95 million.<ref>[http://www.zelle.com/news-updates-13.html ''$180 Million Microsoft Iowa Antitrust Settlement Results in Cash Benefits to Consumers''], {{smallcaps|Zelle LLP}} (August 14, 2007).</ref>

On September 17, 2007, the EU [[General Court (European Union)|Court of First Instance]] rejected Microsoft's appeal.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/gettext.pl?where=&lang=en&num=79929082T19040201&doc=T&ouvert=T&seance=ARRET |title=InfoCuria |publisher=Curia.europa.eu |access-date=2012-10-19}}</ref>

The court affirmed the original contested finding:<ref>Commission Decision 2007/53/EC of 24 March 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 [[European Commission|EC]] and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement against Microsoft Corp. (Case COMP/C-3/37.792 – Microsoft)</ref>

{{blockquote|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.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/gettext.pl?where=&lang=en&num=79929082T19040201&doc=T&ouvert=T&seance=ARRET |title=Judgment Of The Court of First Instance (Grand Chamber)}}</ref>

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 $32 million (~${{Format price|{{Inflation|index=US-GDP|value=32000000|start_year=2005}}}} in {{Inflation/year|US-GDP}}) in December 2005 and ordered to unbundle instant messaging, Windows Media Player and Windows Media Service, or let competitors' products take their place.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4505698.stm |title=South Korea fines Microsoft $32 m |publisher=BBC News |date=2005-12-07 |access-date=2018-09-14}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051211143413/http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/tech/200512/kt2005120717055811780.htm |title=Will Microsoft Pull out of Korea?, The Korea Times |publisher=times.hankooki.com |date=2005-12-07 |access-date=2018-09-14 |url=http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/tech/200512/kt2005120717055811780.htm |archive-date=2005-12-11}}</ref> Microsoft's 2006 appeal was struck down; they have another appeal pending.{{Citation needed|date=February 2014}} 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 (word processor)|Ichitaro]],<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/article/981124/koutori.htm|title=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|date=1998-11-24|website=Impress PC watch|access-date=2019-03-31}}</ref> 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 around $US 2.5 billion, with 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.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/business/worldbusiness/28msoft.html?_r=1&oref=slogin |title=Europe Fines Microsoft $1.3 Billion |work=[[The New York Times]] |author-first1=Stephen |author-last1=Castle |author-first2=David |author-last2=Jolly |date=2008-02-28}}</ref>

In July 2020, [[Slack Technologies|Slack]] filed an antitrust complaint with the European Commission against Microsoft, alleging that Microsoft broke EU competition rules by [[Tying (commerce)|tying]] its [[Microsoft Teams]] software to its [[Microsoft 365]] and Office 365 software suites.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hardawar |first=Devindra |date=2020-07-22 |title=Slack files EU antitrust complaint over Microsoft Teams |url=https://www.engadget.com/slack-microsoft-teams-eu-antitrust-complaint-134423931.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200722135156/https://www.engadget.com/slack-microsoft-teams-eu-antitrust-complaint-134423931.html |archive-date=2020-07-22 |access-date=2024-07-02 |website=[[Engadget]] |language=en-US}}</ref> In July 2023, the European Commission formally opened an investigation into the alleged antitrust violation,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Fielding |first=Sarah |date=2023-07-27 |title=Microsoft faces an EU antitrust probe over its bundling of Teams |url=https://www.engadget.com/microsoft-faces-an-eu-antitrust-probe-over-its-bundling-of-teams-114147712.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230727115627/https://www.engadget.com/microsoft-faces-an-eu-antitrust-probe-over-its-bundling-of-teams-114147712.html |archive-date=2023-07-27 |access-date=2024-07-02 |website=[[Engadget]] |language=en-US}}</ref> and in June 2024 the European Commission announced its preliminary view that Microsoft had violated antitrust law, finding that "Microsoft may have granted Teams a distribution advantage by not giving customers the choice whether or not to acquire access to Teams" when purchasing its other software suites, and that "This advantage may have been further exacerbated by interoperability limitations between Teams' competitors and Microsoft's offerings."<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Fielding |first=Sarah |date=2024-06-25 |title=EU finds Microsoft violated antitrust laws by bundling Teams |url=https://www.engadget.com/eu-finds-microsoft-violated-antirust-laws-by-bundling-teams-121520916.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240625123047/https://www.engadget.com/eu-finds-microsoft-violated-antirust-laws-by-bundling-teams-121520916.html |archive-date=2024-06-25 |access-date=2024-07-02 |website=[[Engadget]] |language=en-US}}</ref> If the European Commission confirms its preliminary view, Microsoft potentially faces a fine of up to 10% of its annual worldwide revenue.<ref name=":0" />

====European Union====
{{Main|European Union Microsoft competition case}}

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 fine=====

On February 27, 2008, the European Union (EU) competitions commission announced its decision to fine the Microsoft Corporation [[Euro|€]]899 million ([[United States dollar|US$]]1.35 billion), approximately 1/10 of the company's net yearly earnings, for failing to comply with the 2004 antitrust order.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7266629.stm |title=EU fines Microsoft record $1.4bn |publisher=BBC News |date=2008-02-27}}</ref>

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 [[Microsoft Windows|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."{{Citation needed|date=July 2010}} 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 investigation=====
In September 2011, the competition commission in [[Spain]] began an investigation into Microsoft's licence agreements, which prevent the transfer of Microsoft software to third parties.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/spain-begins-antitrust-investigation-into-microsoft/ |title=Spain begins antitrust investigation into Microsoft |website=[[ZDNet]] |date=2011-09-20 |access-date=2011-11-24}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.infoworld.com/d/the-industry-standard/spain-investigating-microsoft-alleged-license-breaches-173584 |title=Spain investigating Microsoft for alleged license breaches |date=2011-09-21 |access-date=2011-11-24}}</ref>

====United States====
{{Main|United States v. Microsoft Corp. (2001)}}

''United States v. Microsoft Corp.'', [[Case citation|87 F. Supp. 2d 30]] ([[U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia|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 Klein|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 (web browser)|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 interface]]s (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with [[Original equipment manufacturer|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 [[Classic Mac OS|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.

====Acquisition of [[Activision Blizzard]]====
{{main|Acquisition of Activision Blizzard by Microsoft}}

On January 18, 2022, [[Microsoft]] announced its intent to acquire [[Activision Blizzard]] for $68.7&nbsp;billion in cash. Under the terms of the agreement, which was finalized on October 13, 2023, Microsoft would own [[Activision]], [[Blizzard Entertainment]], and [[King (company)|King]] under the [[Microsoft Gaming]] umbrella. The acquisition proposal itself has reignited antitrust concerns targeted at Microsoft, with mixed reactions from international regulators and rival companies. In December 2022, Microsoft faced a legal action by customers against the acquisition under [[Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914]].<ref>{{cite web | url = https://kotaku.com/microsoft-activision-merger-lawsuit-ftc-call-of-duty-1849917017 | title = Gamers Are Suing Microsoft To Thwart Its Merger With Activision | first = Claire | last = Jackson | date = December 20, 2022 | accessdate=  December 20, 2022 | work = [[Kotaku]] }}</ref>

=== Usage of Microsoft Office 365 and Teams in schools and governmental institutions ===

The Court of Justice of the European Union on 16 July 2020 had ruled that "it is illegal to send private data from the EU to the US"<ref>{{Cite web|title=vie_privee:french_data_protection_authority_says_it_can_t_trust_top_us_internet_companies_with_eu_personal_data_-_glyn_moody_-_traduction_fr [Accompagner l'école face aux défis du numérique]|url=https://wiki.educode.be/doku.php/vie_privee/french_data_protection_authority_says_it_can_t_trust_top_us_internet_companies_with_eu_personal_data_-_glyn_moody_-_traduction_fr|access-date=2021-03-04|website=wiki.educode.be}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=vie_privee:le_cedp_recale_les_accords_de_licence_avec_microsoft [Accompagner l'école face aux défis du numérique]|url=https://wiki.educode.be/doku.php/vie_privee/le_cedp_recale_les_accords_de_licence_avec_microsoft|access-date=2021-03-04|website=wiki.educode.be}}</ref> 
 
Microsoft Office 365 had been banned from several schools in Europe over privacy concerns.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Microsoft Office 365 banned from German schools over privacy concerns|url=https://edri.org/our-work/microsoft-office-365-banned-from-german-schools-over-privacy-concerns/|access-date=2021-03-04|website=European Digital Rights (EDRi)|language=en-US}}</ref>
<!-- And there are some open legal actions against user the use of Microsoft Teams in schools. They will be collected here for references. -->

In March 2024, the [[European Data Protection Supervisor]] (EDPS) found that the use of Microsoft 365 by the [[European Commission]] (EC) violated "several key data protection rules" of the [[Regulation (European Union)|EU Regulation]] 2018/1725 that defines privacy rules for EU institutions. The EC was ordered by the EDPS to suspend all Microsoft 365 related data flows that violated the rules.<ref name="EDPS_EC_MS365_violates">{{cite Q|Q125866160|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Tax disputes===
{{see also|Microsoft v. Internal Revenue Service}}
In 2007, the [[Internal Revenue Service]] began investigating Microsoft over allegations that the company may have transferred some software rights to its international subsidiaries in an effort to evade paying tax to the United States. In 2014, after Microsoft was held in [[contempt of court]] after refusing to hand over the required foreign data,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-refuses-to-hand-over-foreign-data-held-in-contempt-of-court/|title=Microsoft refuses to hand over foreign data, held in contempt of court|author=Zack Whittaker|work=[[ZDNet]] |publisher=[[Ziff Davis]]}}</ref> Microsoft filed a Freedom of Information request on September 22, 2014, regarding a contract between law firm [[Quinn Emmanuel Urqhart and Sullivan]] and the IRS; when IRS did not respond within the required 20 day period (the IRS responded by saying it needed an extension, but after the time elapsed did not provide the requested information) Microsoft filed a lawsuit against the IRS in November.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.geekwire.com/2014/microsoft-sues-irs-seeks-details-contract-law-firm-hired-perform-audits/|title=Microsoft sues the IRS, seeks more details on contract with law firm hired to perform audits|author=Blair Hanley Frank|work=[[GeekWire]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-24/microsoft-sues-irs-over-law-firm-contract-tied-to-audits.html|title=Microsoft Sues IRS Over Law Firm Contract Tied to Audits|date=24 November 2014 |publisher=[[Bloomberg News]]|work=Bloomberg.com}}</ref>

=== Other ===
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.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0324-02.htm |title=Newly Released Documents Shed Light on Microsoft Tactics |access-date=2009-01-27 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090629051646/http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0324-02.htm |archive-date=2009-06-29}}</ref>

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."<ref>{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3715375.stm |title=Microsoft's legal bill 'too big' |work=[[BBC News]] |date=2004-05-14 |access-date=2010-01-05}}</ref> The total bill for legal fees was later reduced to just over $112 million.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://itmatters.com.ph/news/news_09202004d.html |title=San Francisco judge cuts Microsoft legal fees to $100M |access-date=2009-01-27 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20040924121251/http://itmatters.com.ph/news/news_09202004d.html |archive-date=2004-09-24}}</ref> 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 [[Lithuania]]n 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".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.delfi.lt/archive/print.php?id=9502042 |title=As the Government encourages the use of open-source software, Microsoft launches an investigation into e-government (Lithuanian) |access-date=2006-05-23}}</ref>

Microsoft was sued for the "Windows Vista Capable" logo<ref>{{cite web |url=http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/006543.html8 |title=Lawsuit Over "Vista Capable" Labels on PCs Given OK by Judge |publisher=[[PC World]] |author-first=Scott |author-last=Nichols |date=2008-02-25}}{{dead link|date=May 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.pcworld.com/article/143269/microsoft_challenges_users_vista_capable_lawsuit.html |title=Microsoft Challenges Users' 'Vista Capable' Lawsuit |publisher=[[PC World]] |author-first=Gregg |author-last=Keizer |date=2008-03-10}}</ref>
and in [[Iowa]].<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/04/18/financial/f122313D38.DTL&type=business |title=Microsoft Settles Iowa Lawsuit |work=[[The San Francisco Chronicle]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080924095228/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2007%2F04%2F18%2Ffinancial%2Ff122313D38.DTL&type=business |archive-date=2008-09-24 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.forbes.com/2007/02/14/microsoft-lawsuit-iowa-tech-cz_el_0214microsoft.html |title=www.forbes.com/2007/02/14/microsoft-lawsuit-iowa-tech-cz_el_0214microsoft.html |work=Forbes |date=2007-02-14 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20130123101441/http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/14/microsoft-lawsuit-iowa-tech-cz_el_0214microsoft.html |archive-date=2013-01-23 |author-first=Emily |author-last=Lambert |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author-last=Nagourney |author-first=Adam |url=http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/13/business/NA_FIN_US_Microsoft_Class_Action.php |title=The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia |publisher=International Herald Tribune |access-date=2012-10-19}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07109/779145-96.stm |title=www.post-gazette.com/pg/07109/779145-96.stm<!--INSERT TITLE--> |work=Pittsburgh Post-Gazette |date=2007-04-19}}</ref> [[Microsoft Word]] was also a subject of court case.<ref>{{cite web |author-first=Gregg |author-last=Keizer |url=http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9137521/Appeals_court_grants_Microsoft_reprieve_in_Word_case |title=Appeals court grants Microsoft reprieve in Word case |publisher=[[Computerworld]] |date=2009-09-03 |access-date=2012-10-19}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-sues-u-s-customs-office-to-force-google-phone-ban/ |title=Microsoft sues U.S. Customs office to force Google phone ban |work=[[ZDNet]] |access-date=2013-07-12}}</ref>

==Private==
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.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://money.cnn.com/2007/02/22/technology/microsoft_alcatel/index.htm |title=Microsoft ordered to pay $1.52B in patent suit |access-date=2007-02-23 |work=[[CNN]] |date=2007-02-22}}</ref>
* 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 [[Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.|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]].<ref>Markoff, John. [https://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60611FB3D550C738DDDAB0894DD494D81 "Intel and Microsoft Added to Apple Lawsuit"], ''New York Times'', 1995-02-10</ref><ref>Duncan, Geoff. [http://www.tidbits.com/tb-issues/tidbits-263.html#lnk3 "Apple Sues Intel, Microsoft – Again'] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090426161243/http://www.tidbits.com/tb-issues/tidbits-263.html#lnk3 |date=2009-04-26}}, TidBITS, 1995-02-13</ref><ref>Mace, Michael. [https://web.archive.org/web/20010605082836/http://www.pa.msu.edu/~hamlin/facts/1stltr.html "An Open Letter to the Computing Community"], archived from apple.com, 1995-02-09</ref><ref>Mace, Michael. [https://web.archive.org/web/20001012140945/http://www.pa.msu.edu/~hamlin/facts/2ndltr.html "Second open letter from Apple"], archived from apple.com</ref> After a threat to withdraw support for Office for Mac,<ref>{{cite web |author-last=Lea |author-first=Graham |author-link=Graham Lea (journalist) |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/02/01/maritz_on_apple/ |title=Maritz on... Apple |publisher=[[The Register]] |date=1999-02-01}}</ref><ref>Chalmers, Rachel. [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CGN/is_1999_Jan_26/ai_53999515 "Apple And Microsoft: Jobs Barefoot Under A Tree"], ''[[Computergram International]]'', 1999-01-26</ref> 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.<ref>Kawamoto, Dawn; Heskett, Ben; Ricciuti, Mike. [https://archive.today/20120530223706/http://news.cnet.com/MS+to+invest+150+million+in+Apple/2100-1001_3-202143.html "MS to invest $150 million in Apple"], ''[[CNET News]]'', 1997-08-06</ref><ref>[http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/agreements/apple/microsoft.1997.08.05.html "Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement"], FindLaw, 1997-08-05</ref><ref>Eran, Daniel [http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/592FE887-5CA1-4F30-BD62-407362B533B9.html "Mac Office, $150 Million, and the Story Nobody Covered"], ''Roughly Drafted'', Sunday, 2007-03-11</ref><ref>Every, David K., [http://www.mackido.com/History/History_VfW.html], MacKiDo, 1999</ref>
* [[AOL]], on behalf of its [[Netscape]] division.<ref>{{cite news |title=Q&A: Microsoft vs AOL |work=[[BBC News]] |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2949778.stm |date=2003-05-30 |access-date=2010-05-05}}</ref> 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.<ref name="biz-unaware">{{cite news |url=http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2007/03/26/daily18.html?surround=lfn |title=Entrepreneur sued by Microsoft says he was unaware of alleged infractions |access-date=2007-03-28 |author-first=Ben |author-last=Fischer |date=2007-03-28}}</ref><ref>Doris Hajewski. [http://www.jsonline.com/business/42365382.html "AtomicPark operator ordered to pay Microsoft $1.2 million"], ''Milwaukee Journal Sentinel'', 2009-04-02. Retrieved 2015-01-22.</ref>
* [[Be Inc.]], which accused Microsoft of exclusionary and anti-competitive behavior intended to drive Be out of the market. Be even offered to license its [[BeOS|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.<ref>{{cite web |title=Be Incorporated Files Suit Against Microsoft for Violations of Antitrust Laws |date=2002-02-19 |url=http://www.beincorporated.com/press/pressreleases/02-02-19_msft_complaint.html}}</ref>
* [[Bristol Technology]], which accused Microsoft illegally withheld Windows source code and used its dominant position with Windows to move into other markets.<ref>{{cite news |title=Bristol: Microsoft unfairly withheld NT code |work=[[ZDNet]] |date=1999-06-04 |url=http://news.zdnet.co.uk/itmanagement/0,1000000308,2072149,00.htm |access-date=2009-07-03 |quote=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.}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Bristol: Microsoft aggressive, not anti-competitive |work=[[ZDNet UK]] |date=1999-06-07 |url=http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,2072175,00.htm |access-date=2009-07-03 |quote=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.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Bristol Technology v. Microsoft |work=Tech Law Journal |url=http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/bristol/Default.htm |access-date=2009-07-03}}</ref> A ruling later ordered Microsoft to pay $1 million to Bristol Technologies<ref>{{cite web |title=Microsoft Ordered To Pay $1 Million In Bristol Case |publisher=CRN |date=2000-09-01 |url=http://www.crn.com/it-channel/18834532;jsessionid=3EIFGSNLAIOPKQSNDLRSKH0CJUNN2JVN |archive-url=https://archive.today/20130120014617/http://www.crn.com/it-channel/18834532;jsessionid=3EIFGSNLAIOPKQSNDLRSKH0CJUNN2JVN |url-status=dead |archive-date=2013-01-20 |access-date=2009-07-03 |quote='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.}}</ref> (see also [[Windows Interface Source Environment]]).
* {{anchor|Caldera_v_Microsoft}}[[Caldera, Inc.]] in 1996, accused Microsoft of several anti-competitive practices,<ref name="Gavil_2014_Antitrust">{{cite book |title=The Microsoft Antitrust Cases - Competition Policy for the Twenty-first Century |author-first1=Andrew I. |author-last1=Gavil |author-first2=Harry |author-last2=First |publisher=[[MIT Press]] |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA |date=2014-12-09 |isbn=978-0-262-02776-2 }}</ref> including [[vaporware]] announcements, creating [[fear, uncertainty and doubt|FUD]], exclusionary licensing and artificial tying.<ref name="Caldera_1999_Statement_of_facts"/><ref name="Caldera_Fullstory_Tech">{{cite web |title=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 |author-first1=Stephen Daily |author-last1=Susman |author-link1=Stephen Daily Susman |author-first2=Charles R. |author-last2=Eskridge III |author-link2=Charles R. Eskridge III |author-first3=Harry P. |author-last3=Susman |author-first4=James T. |author-last4=Southwick |author-first5=Parker C. |author-last5=Folse III |author-first6=Timothy K. |author-last6=Borchers |author-first7=Ralph H. |author-last7=Palumbo |author-first8=Matthew R.<!-- Matt --> |author-last8=Harris |author-first9=Lynn M. |author-last9=Engel |author-first10=Philip S.<!-- Phil --> |author-last10=McCune |author-first11=Lawrence C. |author-last11=Locker |author-first12=Max D. |author-last12=Wheeler |author-first13=Stephen J. |author-last13=Hill |author-first14=Ryan E. |author-last14=Tibbitts |date=May 1999 |type=Court document |publisher=[[Caldera, Inc.]] |url=http://www.maxframe.com/DR/Info/fullstory/tech.html<!-- http://www.calderathin.com/legal/index.html exact former url not known --> |access-date=2018-08-05 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180805142843/http://www.maxframe.com/DR/Info/fullstory/tech.html |archive-date=2018-08-05 }}</ref><ref name="Caldera_2000_Microsoft">{{cite web |title=Lawsuit |publisher=Caldera, Inc. |date=1998–2000 |url=http://www.drdos.com/lawsuit.html |url-status=usurped |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20000711044222/http://www.drdos.com/lawsuit.html |archive-date=2000-07-11}} (NB. Caldera's public lawsuit documents.)</ref><ref name="Microsoft_2000_Caldera">{{cite web |title=Microsoft and Caldera, Inc. |publisher=[[Microsoft Corporation]] |work=Presspass |date=1999–2000 |url=http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/caldera/default.asp |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20000816202918/http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/caldera/default.asp |archive-date=2000-08-16}} (NB. Microsoft's public lawsuit documents.)</ref> 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&nbsp;DOS 6.0]] although there was no technical reason for it not to work.<ref name="Caldera_1999_Statement_of_facts">{{cite web |title=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 |author-first1=Stephen Daily |author-last1=Susman |author-link1=Stephen Daily Susman |author-first2=Charles R. |author-last2=Eskridge III |author-link2=Charles R. Eskridge III |author-first3=James T. |author-last3=Southwick |author-first4=Harry P. |author-last4=Susman |author-first5=Parker C. |author-last5=Folse III |author-first6=Ralph H. |author-last6=Palumbo |author-first7=Matthew R.<!-- Matt --> |author-last7=Harris |author-first8=Philip S.<!-- Phil --> |author-last8=McCune |author-first9=Lynn M. |author-last9=Engel |author-first10=Stephen J. |author-last10=Hill |author-first11=Ryan E. |author-last11=Tibbitts |date=April 1999 |type=Court document |publisher=[[Caldera, Inc.]] |url=http://www.maxframe.com/DR/Info/fullstory/factstat.html<!-- http://www.calderathin.com/legal/index.html exact former link not known --> |access-date=2018-08-05 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180805184350/http://www.maxframe.com/DR/Info/fullstory/factstat.html |archive-date=2018-08-05 }}</ref><ref name="Caldera_1999_FactRel">{{cite web |title=Caldera submits evidence to counter Microsoft's motions for partial summary judgment |author-first=Lyle |author-last=Ball |author-link=Lyle Ball (Caldera) |publisher=[[Caldera, Inc.]] |date=1999-04-28 |type=Press release |url=http://www.maxframe.com/DR/Info/fullstory/factrel.html<!-- http://www.calderathin.com/legal/index.html exact former url not known --> |access-date=2018-08-05 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180805143119/http://www.maxframe.com/DR/Info/fullstory/factrel.html |archive-date=2018-08-05 }}</ref> 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&nbsp;DOS in pre-releases ([[beta version]]s) of Windows 3.1,<ref name="Schulman_1993_AARD">{{cite journal |title=Examining the Windows AARD Detection Code - A serious message--and the code that produced it |author-first=Andrew |author-last=Schulman |date=September 1993 |journal=[[Dr. Dobb's Journal]] |volume=18 |issue=9 |id=#204 |publisher=[[Miller Freeman, Inc.]] |pages=42, 44–48, 89 |url=http://www.ddj.com/documents/s=1030/ddj9309d/9309d.htm |access-date=2013-10-05 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051210072152/http://www.ddj.com/documents/s%3D1030/ddj9309d/9309d.htm |archive-date=2005-12-10}}</ref><ref name="Schulman_1994_Undocumented-DOS">{{cite book |author-last1=Schulman |author-first1=Andrew |url=https://archive.org/details/undocumenteddosp00andr_0/page/11 |title=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 |author-last2=Brown |author-first2=Ralf D. |author-link2=Ralf D. Brown |author-last3=Maxey |author-first3=David |author-last4=Michels |author-first4=Raymond J. |author-last5=Kyle |author-first5=Jim |date=1994 |publisher=[[Addison Wesley]] |isbn=0-201-63287-X |edition=2 |page=[https://archive.org/details/undocumenteddosp00andr_0/page/11 11] |orig-date=November 1993<!-- first printing --> |url-access=registration}} (xviii+856+vi pages, 3.5-inch floppy) Errata: [https://web.archive.org/web/20190417215556/http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/ralf/pub/books/UndocumentedDOS/errata.ud2][https://web.archive.org/web/20190417212906/https://www.pcjs.org/pubs/pc/programming/Undocumented_DOS/#errata-2nd-edition]</ref><ref name="Egbert_1998">{{cite journal |date=1998-08-27 |title=Microsoft: Vorgetäuschter Bug legte DR-DOS lahm |url=https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Microsoft-Vorgetaeuschter-Bug-legte-DR-DOS-lahm-14173.html |url-status=live |journal=[[Heise Online]] |language=de |publisher=[[Verlag Heinz Heise]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180714175147/https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Microsoft-Vorgetaeuschter-Bug-legte-DR-DOS-lahm-14173.html |archive-date=2018-07-14 |access-date=2018-07-14 |author-first=Egbert |author-last=Meyer}} [https://heise.de/-14173]</ref> 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]].<ref name="Cebit_1998_Winglue">{{cite web |title=Cebit: Caldera shows Windows on DR-DOS, denying MS claims |author-first=Graham |author-last=Lea |author-link=Graham Lea (journalist) |date=1998-03-23 |series=[[CeBIT]] news |location=Hanover, Germany |url=http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/1996865/cebit-caldera-windows-dr-dos-denying-ms-claims |access-date=2009-06-01 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170624231328/https://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/1996865/cebit-caldera-windows-dr-dos-denying-ms-claims |archive-date=2017-06-24}}</ref><ref name="Romano_1998_Winbolt">{{cite journal |author-first=Mike |author-last=Romano |title=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. |journal=[[Seattle Weekly]] |date=1998-09-16 |url=http://www.seattleweekly.com/1998-09-16/news/the-mouse-that-roared/ |access-date=2017-06-24 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170624231746/http://archive.seattleweekly.com/1998-09-16/news/the-mouse-that-roared/ |archive-date=2017-06-24 |quote=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.}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |title=Win95 – is it just Dos 7 plus Windows 4 after all? The judge thinks it could be ... |author-first=Graham |author-last=Lea |author-link=Graham Lea (journalist) |date=1999-11-05 |journal=[[The Register]] |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/11/05/win95_is_it_just_dos/ |access-date=2016-11-25 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161125133814/https://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/11/05/win95_is_it_just_dos/ |archive-date=2016-11-25}}</ref><ref name="Paul_2002_RMD">{{cite web |title=[fd-dev] HMA access from TSR |author-first=Matthias R. |author-last=Paul |date=2002-04-10 |url=https://marc.info/?l=freedos-dev&m=101846072627263&w=4 |access-date=2017-09-09 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.today/20170909125117/https://marc.info/?l=freedos-dev&m=101846072627263&w=4 |archive-date=2017-09-09 |quote=[[MS-DOS 7.0]]+ ... introduced a ... for the most part undocumented RMD data structure usually located in the [[High memory area|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 ...}}</ref><ref name="Diedrich_1998_1">{{cite journal |date=1998-07-30 |title=Caldera erhält den Quellcode von Windows 95 |url=https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Caldera-erhaelt-den-Quellcode-von-Windows-95-13605.html |url-status=live |journal=[[Heise Online]] |language=de |publisher=[[Verlag Heinz Heise]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180714190521/https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Caldera-erhaelt-den-Quellcode-von-Windows-95-13605.html |archive-date=2018-07-14 |access-date=2018-07-14 |author-first=Oliver |author-last=Diedrich}} [https://heise.de/-13605]</ref><ref name="Diedrich_1998_2">{{cite journal |date=1998-08-27 |title=Microsoft hat den Windows-Quellcode verbummelt |url=https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Microsoft-hat-den-Windows-Quellcode-verbummelt-14161.html |url-status=live |journal=[[Heise Online]] |language=de |publisher=[[Verlag Heinz Heise]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180714182933/https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Microsoft-hat-den-Windows-Quellcode-verbummelt-14161.html |archive-date=2018-07-14 |access-date=2018-07-14 |author-first=Oliver |author-last=Diedrich}} [https://heise.de/-14161]</ref> In 2000, Microsoft settled out of court for an undisclosed sum, which in 2009 was revealed to be $280 million,<ref name="Groklaw_2009_NovellWP">{{cite web |title=Exhibits to Microsoft's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment in Novell WordPerfect Case |url=http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091120165256836 |work=[[Groklaw]] |date=2009-11-23 |access-date=2011-10-22 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.today/20130821080038/http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091120165256836 |archive-date=2013-08-21}}</ref><ref name="Caldera_Microsoft_2000_Settlement">{{cite web |title=Settlement agreement - Microsoft Corporation and Caldera, Inc. reach agreement to settle antitrust lawsuit |author-first1=Thomas W. |author-last1=Burt |author-first2=Bryan Wayne |author-last2=Sparks |author-link2=Bryan Wayne Sparks |date=2000-01-07 |id=Case 1:05-cv-01087-JFM, Document 104-8, Filed 2009-11-13; NOV00107061-NOV00107071; LT2288-LT2298; Lan12S311263739.1; Exhibit A |type=Court document |url=http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/NovvMS-104-8.pdf |access-date=2018-08-03 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170704220659/http://groklaw.net/pdf2/NovvMS-104-8.pdf |archive-date=2017-07-04 |quote=[[Microsoft]] will pay to [[Caldera, Inc.|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&nbsp;...}} (NB. This document of the ''Caldera v. Microsoft'' case was an exhibit in the later ''[[Comes v. Microsoft]]'' case.)</ref><ref name="Microsoft_2009_Memorandum">{{cite web |title=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 |author-first1=Richard J. |author-last1=Wallis |author-first2=Steven J. |author-last2=Aeschbacher |author-first3=Mark M. |author-last3=Bettilyon |author-first4=G. Stewar |author-last4=Webb, Jr. |author-first5=David B. |author-last5=Tulchin |author-first6=Steven L. |author-last6=Holley |date=2009-11-13 |location=United States District Court, District of Maryland |type=Court document |id=Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action No. JFM-05-1087 |page=16 |url=http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/NovvMS-104-2.pdf |access-date=2018-08-03 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190524154518/http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/NovvMS-104-2.pdf |archive-date=2019-05-24 |quote= [[Microsoft]] paid $280 million to [[Caldera, Inc.|Caldera]] to settle the case&nbsp;...}}</ref><ref name="Gomes_2000_Settlement">{{cite news |title=Microsoft Will Pay $275 Million To Settle Lawsuit From Caldera |author-first=Lee |author-last=Gomes |date=2000-01-11 |newspaper=[[The Wall Street Journal]] |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB947543007415899052 |access-date=2019-11-24 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161231130504/http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB947543007415899052 |archive-date=2016-12-31 |quote=[[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&nbsp;...}}</ref><ref name="Schulman_2000_Dossier">{{cite web |title=The Caldera v. Microsoft Dossier |author-first=Andrew |author-last=Schulman |date=2000-02-07 |work=[[O'Reilly Network]] |publisher=[[O'Reilly and Associates, Inc.]] |url=http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2000/02/07/schulman.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20000819023434/http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2000/02/07/schulman.html |archive-date=2000-08-19}}</ref> and the Caldera evidence was destroyed in 2003.<ref name="Lettice_2003_Evidence">{{cite web |title=SCO pulps Caldera-MS trial archives - History is toilet tissue… |author-first=John |author-last=Lettice |date=2003-05-22 |website=[[The Register]] |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/05/22/sco_pulps_calderams_trial_archives/ |access-date=2018-09-09 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.today/20180909214850/https://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/05/22/sco_pulps_calderams_trial_archives/ |archive-date=2018-09-09}}</ref><ref name="Register_evidence">{{cite web |title=Microsoft's dirty tricks archive vanishes - What don't they want us to see? |date=2003-02-22 |author-first=Andrew |author-last=Orlowski |work=[[The Register]] |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/20/microsoft_missing_archive/ |access-date=2018-07-14 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180714181505/https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/20/microsoft_missing_archive/ |archive-date=2018-07-14}}</ref>
* [[Opera Software]], which accused Microsoft of intentionally making its MSN service incompatible with the [[Opera (web browser)|Opera]] browser on several occasions.<ref>{{cite press release |url=http://www.operasoftware.com/press/releases/desktop/opera-releases-bork-edition |title=Opera releases 'Bork' edition |date=2003-02-14 |work=[[Opera Software]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.cnet.com/news/opera-wails-about-msn-problem/ |title=Opera wails about MSN problem |author-last=Festa |author-first=Paul |date=2003-05-22 |work=[[CNET]]}}</ref>
* [[Sendo]], which accused Microsoft of terminating their partnership so it could steal Sendo's technology to use in [[Pocket PC 2002]] Phone Edition.<ref>{{cite news |title=Sendo & Microsoft – it all ends in tears |work=[[The Inquirer]] |url=https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1002710/sendo--microsoft--it-all-ends-in-tears|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100306165751/http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1002710/sendo--microsoft--it-all-ends-in-tears|url-status=unfit|archive-date=March 6, 2010}}</ref>
* [[Spyglass, Inc.|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 an $8 million settlement.<ref>{{cite news |title=Microsoft's $8 Million Goodbye to Spyglass |work=[[BusinessWeek]] |url=http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/january/new0122d.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/19970629174318/http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/january/new0122d.htm|url-status=dead|archive-date=June 29, 1997}}</ref>
* [[Stac Electronics]], which accused Microsoft of stealing its data compression code and using it in [[MS-DOS 6.0]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Microsoft Loses Patent Suit |url=http://www.base.com/software-patents/articles/stac.html |access-date=2009-01-27 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070929001949/http://www.base.com/software-patents/articles/stac.html |archive-date=2007-09-29}}</ref> Microsoft eventually lost the subsequent ''[[Stac v. Microsoft]]'' lawsuit and was ordered by a federal court to pay roughly $120 million in compensation.<ref>Lawrence M. Fisher (24 February 1994). [https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03E2D6113BF937A15751C0A962958260 "Microsoft Loses Case on Patent"]. ''The New York Times''</ref>
* 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 fonts which it had designed 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, Server 2003 and four other Chinese-language Windows operating systems. Beijing's No.&nbsp;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.<ref>{{cite news |title=Microsoft violated Chinese company's rights: court |agency=[[Agence France-Presse]] |work=[[Taipei Times]] |date=2009-11-18 |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worldbiz/archives/2009/11/18/2003458723 |access-date=2009-11-20}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |author-last=Lee |author-first=Melanie |author-last2=Durfee |author-first2=Don |author-last3=Geoghegan |author-first3=Ian |title=China orders Microsoft to halt some Windows sales |work=[[Reuters]] |date=2009-11-18 |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE5AH0M020091118?sp=true |access-date=2009-11-20}}</ref> Microsoft said it will appeal.<ref>{{cite news |author-last=Hille |author-first=Kathrin |title=Chinese court rules against Microsoft |work=[[Financial Times]] |date=2009-11-17 |url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5109c502-d3a7-11de-8caf-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1 |access-date=2009-11-20}}</ref> One of the fonts in question may be [[SimSun]].<ref>{{cite web |title=SimSun – Version 2.10 |work=Microsoft Typography |publisher=[[Microsoft]] |date=2009 |url=https://www.microsoft.com/typography/Fonts/font.aspx?FMID=213 |access-date=2009-11-20}}</ref>
* Many other smaller companies have filed patent abuse and predatory practice suits against Microsoft.

===Patents===

====Alcatel-Lucent====
{{Main|Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft Corp.}}

The dispute between Microsoft and Lucent (and later Alcatel-Lucent) began in 2003 when [[Lucent Technologies]] (acquired by [[Alcatel-Lucent|Alcatel]] in 2006) filed suit against [[Gateway, Inc.|Gateway]] in the [[United States District Court for the Southern District of California|U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California]] in [[San Diego]]. Lucent also sued [[Dell]] in the [[United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia|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 [[intervention (law)|intervened]] in the lawsuit in April 2003 and Alcatel was added after it acquired Lucent.<ref>{{cite news |title=Microsoft ordered to pay Alcatel-Lucent $1.52B for infringement |work=Physorg.com |date=2007-02-23 |url=http://www.physorg.com/news91425550.html |access-date=2007-02-24 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070225094741/http://www.physorg.com/news91425550.html |archive-date=2007-02-25}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.dspdesignline.com/news/198100686 |title=ITC to rule on Microsoft, Alcatel-Lucent IPR spat |publisher=DSP DesignLine |access-date=2018-09-14}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201304159 |title=Microsoft's Court Battles With Alcatel-Lucent Far From Over |work=InformationWeek |access-date=2018-09-14}}</ref>

====Burst.com====
* [[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.<ref>{{cite web |title=Message from a Burst chairman |date=November 2004 |url=http://www.burst.com/new/newsevents/chairltr112004.htm |access-date=2009-01-27 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071023000759/http://burst.com/new/newsevents/chairltr112004.htm |archive-date=2007-10-23}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Microsoft Corp. Licenses Burst.com Patents & Settles Suit |url=http://www.burst.com/new/newsevents/pressrelease007.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080304102031/http://burst.com/new/newsevents/pressrelease007.htm |archive-date=2008-03-04}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Allchin named, as proof of MS email destruction policy is sought |work=[[The Register]] |date=2004-05-24 |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/24/allchin_destroy_email_claim/}}</ref>

====Eolas====
* [[Eolas]] and [[University of California]], which accused Microsoft of using some of its software patents in their web browser, won $521 million in court;<ref>{{cite news |title=Eolas' web patent nullified |work=[[The Register]] |date=2004-03-05 |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/05/eolas_web_patent_nullified/}}</ref> however, Eolas' patents were invalidated in 2012.

====SurfCast====
SurfCast is suing Microsoft for infringing patent on Live Tiles.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theverge.com/2012/10/31/3580728/microsoft-sued-for-infringing-patent-on-live-tiles |title=Microsoft sued for infringing patent on Live Tiles |work=[[The Verge]] |access-date=2012-10-31}}</ref>

===Copyrights===
{{see also|Microsoft Corp. v. DAK Industries, Inc.}}

====Apple====
{{Main|Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.}}

''Apple Computer Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation'', [[Case citation|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 [[Apple Lisa|Lisa]] and [[Macintosh]] [[operating system]]s. 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 computer]]s. 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 (HP software)|NewWave]] windows application were infringing. The lawsuit was filed on March 17, 1988 and lasted four years; the decision was affirmed on appeal in 1994,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://home.earthlink.net/~mjohnsen/Technology/Lawsuits/appvsms.html |title=Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) |work=Earthlink |access-date=2012-10-19 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071214033452/http://home.earthlink.net/~mjohnsen/Technology/Lawsuits/appvsms.html |archive-date=2007-12-14 |url-status=dead }}</ref> and Apple's appeal to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] was denied.

===Trademarks===

====Lindows====
{{Main|Microsoft Corp. v. Lindows.com, Inc.}}

''Microsoft v. Lindows.com, Inc.'' was a court [[Legal case|case]] brought on December 20, 2001, by [[Microsoft]] against [[Linspire|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 (businessman)|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.

====MikeRoweSoft====
{{Main|Microsoft vs. MikeRoweSoft}}

In a legal dispute, Microsoft sued a Canadian high school student named Mike Rowe over the [[domain name]] MikeRoweSoft.com.<ref name="zdnet">{{cite web |author-last=Kotadia |author-first=Munir |title=Software giant threatens mikerowesoft |work=[[ZDNet]] |date=2004-01-19 |url=http://news.zdnet.co.uk/itmanagement/0,1000000308,39119181,00.htm?r=10 |access-date=2008-10-01}}</ref> 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.<ref name="theage">{{cite news |author-last=Barker |author-first=Gary |title=Teenager takes on a corporate monster |work=[[The Age]] |date=2004-01-21 |url=http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/20/1074360769726.html |access-date=2008-10-02 |location=Melbourne}}</ref> A settlement was eventually agreed, with Rowe granting ownership of the domain to Microsoft in return for training and gifts.<ref name="BBC">{{cite news |title=Boy swaps MikeRoweSoft for Xbox |work=[[BBC News]] |date=2004-01-26 |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3429485.stm |access-date=2008-10-01}}</ref>

As of this writing, the domain MikeRoweSoft.com still redirects to Microsoft.com.

====Shah====
{{Main|Microsoft Corp. v. Shah}}

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.

====Windows Commander====
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.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ghisler.com/name.htm |title=Total Commander - Name change |work=Ghisler |access-date=2009-06-05}}</ref>

====wxWindows====
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 '[[Microsoft Windows|Windows]]' is a UK trademark owned by Microsoft.<ref>{{cite web |title=wxWindows Name Change |url=http://www.wxwidgets.org/about/name.htm}}</ref>

====Microwindows====
The [[Microwindows]] project was renamed to Nano-X Window System in January 2005, due to legal threats from Microsoft regarding the [[Microsoft Windows|Windows]] trademark.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.microwindows.org/faq.html |title=Nano-X Frequently Asked Questions |work=Microwindows |date=2010-01-24 |access-date=2012-10-19}}</ref>

===Other===
====Ticketmaster deep linking case====
{{see also|Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc.}}
In 1997, Ticketmaster sued Microsoft over practice of [[deep linking]] - at the time a controversial practice as it was argued it would bypass advertising on a website's front page - on its [[Sidewalk.com]] website, having previously blocked requests coming from the website following a stalemate of an agreement that would allowed such.<ref name="Dunn">{{cite news |title=Hey, You! Who You Pointin' At? |author=Dunn, Ashley |url=https://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/surf/052197mind.html |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |date=1997-05-21 |accessdate=2012-08-22 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20020917005626/http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/surf/052197mind.html |url-status=live |archivedate=2002-09-17 }}</ref>  The case was settled two years later when Microsoft agreed to stop deep linking Ticketmaster on Sidewalk.com.<ref name="Gaw">{{cite news |title=Ticketmaster Sues Internet Rival |author=Gaw, Jonathan |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-aug-12-fi-64965-story.html |newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]] |location=Los Angeles |date=1999-08-12 |access-date=2012-08-22 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120822234335/http://articles.latimes.com/1999/aug/12/business/fi-64965 |url-status=live |archive-date=2012-08-22 }}</ref>

====Xbox 360====
Microsoft has been accused of deceiving consumers by concealing [[Xbox 360 technical problems|the high failure rate]] of its [[Xbox 360]] game console. A woman from [[California]] sued Microsoft in 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.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Keizer |first=Gregg |date=2008-10-20 |title=Woman sues Microsoft over Xbox 360 'red ring of death' |url=https://www.computerworld.com/article/2533570/woman-sues-microsoft-over-xbox-360--red-ring-of-death-.html |access-date=2022-03-12 |website=Computerworld |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://gear.ign.com/articles/920/920826p1.html |title=Microsoft Gets Sued For Red Rings |work=IGN |date=2008-10-16 |access-date=2012-10-19}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2008-10-30 |title=PC World - Californians Sue Over Xbox 360 Flaw |url=https://www.pcworld.com/article/152463/californians_sue_over_xbox_360_flaw.html |access-date=2022-03-12 |website= |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081030102144/https://www.pcworld.com/article/152463/californians_sue_over_xbox_360_flaw.html |archive-date=30 October 2008 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

====OpenAI data scraping====
In June 2023, a lawsuit claimed that Microsoft's partner and supplier [[OpenAI]] scraped 300 billion words online without consent and without registering as a data broker. It was filed in [[San Francisco]], [[California]], by sixteen anonymous plaintiffs. They also claimed that Microsoft and OpenAI continued to unlawfully collect and use personal data from millions of consumers worldwide to train their [[artificial intelligence]] models.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Xiang |first1=Chloe |title=OpenAI and Microsoft Sued for $3 Billion Over Alleged ChatGPT 'Privacy Violations' |url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/openai-and-microsoft-sued-for-dollar3-billion-over-alleged-chatgpt-privacy-violations/ |work=Vice |date=29 June 2023 |language=en}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
* [http://microsoftontheissues.com Microsoft On The Issues]
* [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041228040645419 Microsoft Litigation Resource Page]
* [http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/17/news/antitrust.php Microsoft case could make EU 'litigation capital of the world']

{{Microsoft}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Microsoft Litigation}}
[[Category:Microsoft litigation| ]]
[[Category:History of Microsoft]]
[[Category:Computer case law]]
[[Category:Lists of lawsuits]]