How a case Oracle lost 14 years ago is troubling Microsoft, forcing it to seek a lifeline from UK’s Supreme Court

In 2012, Oracle went to the European Court of Justice to stop people reselling its software licences second-hand. It lost. That judgment, known as UsedSoft, settled a simple idea: once you sell someone a perpetual software licence, you cannot control what they do with it afterwards. Fourteen years on, that ruling is proving to be Microsoft’s biggest problem in a London courtroom.Microsoft has now lost twice in a £270 million case brought by UK reseller ValueLicensing, and it is asking the Supreme Court for permission to try again. The Competition Appeal Tribunal ruled in 2025 that reselling and subdividing Microsoft’s on-premise licences did not infringe its copyright. Microsoft appealed. On July 7, it lost that too. On July 21, the tribunal granted an extended stay while Microsoft prepares its Supreme Court application, but stopped short of freezing the case entirely.

Why Microsoft changed its defence midway through the ValueLicensing case

The dispute began in 2021, and not over copyright at all. ValueLicensing claimed Microsoft inserted contractual clauses that pushed customers toward Microsoft 365 subscriptions while stopping them from reselling their perpetual licences, choking off the supply of surplus Office licences. Microsoft contested that, then shifted tack and argued the resale itself was copyright infringement. The tribunal disagreed. So did the Court of Appeal.The appeal judgment was blunt about where Microsoft’s logic led. It said the approach “would produce odd results”, pointing out that it created a strange split between software sold on CD-ROM, where Microsoft has no control over resale, and everything else. Worse, the judgment noted that under Microsoft’s reading, a company could sidestep UsedSoft entirely by simply bundling “some icons or clip art” into a program.

What happens next in the £270 million Microsoft licence resale case

The stay is partial. ValueLicensing’s disclosure and confidentiality applications will still be heard, likely at a Case Management Conference in September. Tribunal chair Justin Turner KC called it middle ground, weighing wasted costs against the risk of delay. He noted the claimant had already won at first instance and on appeal.ValueLicensing’s Jonathan Horley said the company was pleased a full stay was refused and wants to move toward a liability trial quickly. Microsoft has not commented publicly.The stakes go beyond £270 million. A separate class action over similar claims, represented by Alexander Wolfson, could run into billions of pounds. Microsoft’s used-licence argument was never only about ValueLicensing.