|
CONTINGENCIES
|
12 Months Ended | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Jun. 30, 2014
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CONTINGENCIES | NOTE 17 — CONTINGENCIES Antitrust, Unfair Competition, and Overcharge Class Actions A large number of antitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits were filed against us in various state, federal, and Canadian courts on behalf of various classes of direct and indirect purchasers of our PC operating system and certain other software products between 1999 and 2005. We obtained dismissals or reached settlements of all claims made in the United States. Under the settlements, generally class members can obtain vouchers that entitle them to be reimbursed for purchases of a wide variety of platform-neutral computer hardware and software. The total value of vouchers that we may issue varies by state. We will make available to certain schools a percentage of those vouchers that are not issued or claimed (one-half to two-thirds depending on the state). The total value of vouchers we ultimately issue will depend on the number of class members who make claims and are issued vouchers. We estimate the total remaining cost of the settlements is approximately $400 million, all of which had been accrued as of June 30, 2014. Three similar cases pending in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, Canada have not been settled. In March 2010, the court in the British Columbia case certified it as a class action. The plaintiffs successfully appealed a British Columbia Court of Appeal decision reversing class certification and dismissing the case. In October 2013, the Canadian Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and reinstated part of the British Columbia case, which is now scheduled for trial in September 2015. The other two cases were inactive pending action by the Supreme Court on the British Columbia case. Other Antitrust Litigation and Claims Novell litigation In November 2004, Novell, Inc. (“Novell”) filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (later transferred to federal court in Maryland), asserting antitrust and unfair competition claims against us related to Novell’s ownership of WordPerfect and other productivity applications during the period between June 1994 and March 1996. After the trial court dismissed or granted summary judgment on a number of Novell’s claims, trial of the one remaining claim took place in late 2011 and resulted in a mistrial. In July 2012, the trial court granted Microsoft’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. Novell appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which affirmed the trial court’s decision in September 2013. The Supreme Court denied Novell’s petition for review in April 2014. Go Computer litigation In June 2005, GO Computer Inc. and co-founder Jerry Kaplan filed a complaint in California state court asserting antitrust claims under the Cartwright Act related to the business of the former GO Corporation in the early 1990s and its successor in interest, Lucent Corporation in the early 2000s. All claims prior to June 2001 have been dismissed with prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations. After a mini-trial on standing issues, the case is now moving forward with discovery, and a trial is set for September 2015. China State Administration for Industry and Commerce investigation On July 28, 2014, Microsoft was informed that China’s State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) had begun a formal investigation relating to China’s Anti-Monopoly Law, and the SAIC conducted onsite inspections of Microsoft offices in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Chengdu. SAIC has stated the investigation relates to compatibility, bundle sales, and file verification issues related to Windows and Office software. Patent and Intellectual Property Claims Motorola litigation In October 2010, Microsoft filed patent infringement complaints against Motorola Mobility (“Motorola”) with the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) and in U.S. District Court in Seattle for infringement of nine Microsoft patents by Motorola’s Android devices. Since then, Microsoft and Motorola have filed additional claims against each other with the ITC, in federal district courts in Seattle, Wisconsin, Florida, and California, and in courts in Germany and the United Kingdom. The nature of the claims asserted and status of individual matters are summarized below. International Trade Commission In May 2012, the ITC issued a limited exclusion order against Motorola on one Microsoft patent, which became effective in July 2012 and was affirmed on appeal in December 2013. In July 2013, Microsoft filed an action in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. seeking an order to compel enforcement of the ITC’s May 2012 import ban against infringing Motorola products by the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), after learning that CBP had failed to fully enforce the order.
In November 2010, Motorola filed an action against Microsoft with the ITC alleging infringement of five Motorola patents by Xbox consoles and accessories and seeking an exclusion order to prohibit importation of the allegedly infringing Xbox products. At Motorola’s request, the ITC terminated its investigation of four Motorola patents. In March 2013, the ITC affirmed there was no violation of the remaining Motorola patent. Motorola appealed the ITC’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. U.S. District Court The Seattle District Court case filed in October 2010 by Microsoft as a companion to Microsoft’s ITC case against Motorola was stayed pending the outcome of the ITC case. In November 2010, Microsoft sued Motorola for breach of contract in U.S. District Court in Seattle, alleging that Motorola breached its commitments to standards-setting organizations to license to Microsoft certain patents on reasonable and non-discriminatory (“RAND”) terms and conditions. Motorola has declared these patents essential to the implementation of the H.264 video standard and the 802.11 Wi-Fi standard. In the Motorola ITC case described above and in suits described below, Motorola or a Motorola affiliate subsequently sued Microsoft on those patents in U.S. District Courts, in the ITC, and in Germany. In February 2012, the Seattle District Court granted a partial summary judgment in favor of Microsoft ruling that (1) Motorola had committed to standards organizations to license its declared-essential patents on RAND terms and conditions; and (2) Microsoft is a third-party beneficiary of those commitments. After trial, the Seattle District Court set per unit royalties for Motorola’s H.264 and 802.11 patents, which resulted in an immaterial Microsoft liability. In September 2013, following trial of Microsoft’s breach of contract claim, a jury awarded $14.5 million in damages to Microsoft. Motorola appealed. Cases filed by Motorola in Wisconsin, California, and Florida, with the exception of one currently stayed case in Wisconsin (a companion case to Motorola’s ITC action), have been transferred to the U.S District Court in Seattle. Motorola and Microsoft both seek damages as well as injunctive relief. The court has stayed these cases on agreement of the parties.
Germany In July 2011, Motorola filed patent infringement actions in Germany against Microsoft and several Microsoft subsidiaries.
In lawsuits Microsoft filed in Germany in 2011 and 2012, Microsoft asserts that Motorola Android devices infringe Microsoft patents and is seeking damages and injunctions. In 2012, regional courts in Germany issued injunctions on three of the Microsoft patents, which Motorola appealed. One judgment has been affirmed on appeal (and Motorola has further appealed), and the other two appeals are pending. In actions filed separately by Motorola to invalidate these patents, the Federal Patent Court in 2013 and 2014 held the Microsoft patents invalid, and Microsoft appealed. For the cases in which Microsoft obtained injunctions, if Motorola were to prevail following all appeals, Motorola could have a claim against Microsoft for damages caused by an erroneously granted injunction. United Kingdom In December 2011, Microsoft filed an action against Motorola in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, in London, England, seeking to revoke the UK part of the European patent asserted by Motorola in Germany against the ActiveSync protocol. In February 2012, Motorola counterclaimed alleging infringement of the patent and seeking damages and an injunction. In December 2012, the court ruled that Motorola’s patent is invalid. The court also ruled that the patent, even if valid, would be licensed under the grant-back clause in Google’s ActiveSync license. Motorola appealed and the appeals court affirmed the lower court’s ruling in Microsoft’s favor in November 2013. Motorola has exhausted all appeals and the rulings in Microsoft’s favor are final. IPCom patent litigation IPCom GmbH & Co. is a German company that holds a large portfolio of mobile technology related patents spanning about 170 patent families and addressing a broad range of cellular technologies. IPCom has asserted 19 of these patents in litigation against Nokia and many of the leading cell phone companies and operators. Three of the infringement suits against Nokia (now assumed by Microsoft through the NDS acquisition) are still pending in courts in Germany, England, and Italy. These courts have held a number of IPCom’s patents were invalid or not infringed. We continue to contest the validity or infringement of the patents remaining in dispute. Interdigital patent litigation InterDigital Technology Corporation and InterDigital Communications Corporation (collectively, “IDT”) filed four patent infringement cases against Nokia in the ITC and in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware between 2007 and 2013. We are being substituted for Nokia in these cases. Each case includes other co-defendants because most of the patents at issue allegedly relate to 3G and 4G wireless communications standards essential functionality. The suite of cases include three ITC investigations where IDT is seeking an order excluding importation of 3G and 4G phones into the U.S. and one active case in U.S. District Court in Delaware seeking an injunction and damages. European copyright levies We have assumed from Nokia all potential liability due to Nokia’s alleged failure to pay “private copying levies” in various European countries based upon sale of memory cards and mobile phones that incorporate blank memory. The levies are based upon a 2001 EU Directive establishing a right for end users to make copies of copyrighted works for personal or private use, but also allowing the collection of levies based upon sales of blank media or recording devices to compensate copyright holders for private copying. Various collecting societies in EU countries initiated litigation against Nokia, stating that Nokia must pay levies not only based upon sales of blank memory cards, but also phones that include blank memory for data storage on the phones, regardless of actual usage of that memory. The most significant cases against Nokia are pending in Germany and Austria, due to both high volume of sales and high levy amounts sought in these countries. We are litigating against certain collecting societies on the basis that the levy schemes exceed what the EU Directive and European Court of Justice decisions permit. Other patent and intellectual property claims In addition to these cases, there are approximately 90 other patent infringement cases pending against Microsoft.
Product-Related Litigation U.S. cell phone litigation Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant in 19 lawsuits filed in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia by individual plaintiffs who allege that radio emissions from cellular handsets caused their brain tumors and other adverse health effects. We have assumed responsibility for these claims as part of the NDS acquisition. Nine of these cases were filed in 2002 and are consolidated for certain pre-trial proceedings; the remaining ten cases are stayed. In a separate 2009 decision, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that adverse health effect claims arising from the use of cellular handsets that operate within the U.S. Federal Communications Commission radio frequency emission guidelines (“FCC Guidelines”) are pre-empted by federal law. The plaintiffs allege that their handsets either operated outside the FCC Guidelines or were manufactured before the FCC Guidelines went into effect. The lawsuits also allege an industry-wide conspiracy to manipulate the science and testing around emission guidelines. In September 2013, defendants in the consolidated cases moved to exclude plaintiffs’ expert evidence of general causation on the basis of flawed scientific methodologies. The motion was heard in December 2013 and January 2014. In March 2014, defendants filed a separate motion to preclude plaintiffs’ general causation testimony on the ground that it is pre-empted by federal law because the experts challenge the safety of all cellular handsets, including those that comply with the FCC Guidelines. Both motions are pending. Canadian cell phone class action Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant in a 2013 class action lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia by a purported class of Canadians who have used cellular phones for at least 1600 hours, including a subclass of users with brain tumors. Microsoft was served with the complaint in June 2014. The litigation is not yet active as several defendants remain to be served. Other We also are subject to a variety of other claims and suits that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of our business. Although management currently believes that resolving claims against us, individually or in aggregate, will not have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial statements, these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and management’s view of these matters may change in the future. As of June 30, 2014, we had accrued aggregate liabilities of $780 million in other current liabilities and $81 million in other long-term liabilities for all of our legal matters that were contingencies as of that date. While we intend to defend these matters vigorously, adverse outcomes that we estimate could reach approximately $2.0 billion in aggregate beyond recorded amounts are reasonably possible. Were unfavorable final outcomes to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial statements for the period in which the effects become reasonably estimable. Substantially all changes from the prior quarter in these accruals and estimates are attributable to matters involving Nokia that we assumed as a result of the NDS acquisition. |