Microsoft claims 'landmark victory' against defunct UK reseller Microsoft has said it will go after the assets of the former MD of defunct IT distie ITAC UK Ltd in a long-running parallel importing dispute. But lawyers for the reseller have slammed Microsoft for breaching an earlier confidentiality agreement between the two firms. On Wednesday Microsoft claimed to have scored a “landmark …
the company went into liquidation it doesn’t mean that the money they still owe, and any actions that they have taken, will simply disappear”.
I rather think you'll find that it will, in all likelyhood. MS will only get anything if there's anything left after the secured creditors have been paid out. AFAIK, as IANAL. But my company IS waiting for pay-out from an insolvency case. Not holding my breath.
'Microsoft had accused ITAC UK of parallel importing – bringing products into the UK which were originally destined for other markets'
So it's ok when they use the 'free market' to get things made cheaply but it's not ok when we want to import something that is cheaper abroad.
It isn't just microsoft, most of the big electronics companies are just as guilty
We need a Grrrrr icon
Complaining about "parallel importing" is nothing more than saying "Waaah! I want more money!" If a company is willing to sell a product at a specific price point, why is it illegal to buy that product at that price? Just because the company doesn't make as much money as they'd like? Guess what -- there's no guaranteed right to profit. Where will they draw the line with "parallel importing"? Right now they seem to draw the line at country borders, but it doesn't have to stay that way. "What's that, you bought our product is a neighboring city? I'm sorry, but that's illegal. You must buy it in your home city." There's literally no difference.
If a company is selling a product at a specific price, and I'm willing to pay that price, the government shouldn't get in the way. It's a legitimate and fair trade. I give them the cash they're asking for, and they give me the product I'm asking for. Everyone is happy. They only complain when they find out I live somewhere else.
And before someone starts talking about different prices for different economic areas, let me be the first to say "I don't care". If a company is willing to sell a product at a specific price, then anybody should be able to buy it from that location at that price. For example, if a company in the UK is able to buy software from the US and still sell it for less than the company is charging, then that shows the fallacy of the "but it's because of our higher operating costs" argument.
these people really are sc*m aren't they...I mean, kick a man while he's down and then molest his family while you're at it!! I can't believe they could be allowed to pursue this case with so much fervour and then crow about it publically!! Do they care so little about what people think of them? Of course they don't because Linux is not the kind of OS for the amateur and Macs are too expensive so what alternative do they have??
and of course, if you buy a machine from a mainstream retailer, it carries the Devil's System upon it already....
I guess if we wait for the karma to build up......
Sueing as a company goes into liquidation is a complete waste of time. I've been employed by two companies that went under (before you ask, it wasn't my fault - my collegaues and I represented solid turn-over which the management quietly burnt on failed projects, and were the only asset worth selling on), and been through the insolvency proceedings.
I'm definitely no lawyer, but my understanding is:
Secured creditors get their cash first (and that can include the Tax Man). If there's anything left, the employees get their salaries. Again if there's still anything left, the employees get their expenses, and finally, unsecured creditors (such as software vendors, contractors, service companies) get to fight over the remnants. But it's quite rare that there's even anything left for the salaries, let alone more. MS are almost certainly on a hiding to nothing - the money has gone.
Their only hope is if the FSA (or other regulator?) decides that the MD was directly responsible and should have known better. Then they can go after him personally. But from bitter experience, if he's done one and is now living in <pick a tax haven>, they've still had it.
(anonymous, simply because the MD who screwed us over is the sort of grasping little ^&%£$% who would sue us for impugning his name and I can't be bothered to fight any more)
Therefore am I right in thinking that unless the judgement was guaranteed by the MD personally, Microsoft can only go after the company, which with no money means they will get bugger all. BUT it does give them a great excuse to fleece, I mean charge to market conditions, the British public for even more.
We do need a Grrrrr logo
The Companies House website shows that ITAC UK is actually ITAC UK LTD which mean that assuming that it's the same one (shows as a software distributer, based in Manchester, Company No. 03569475 and in administration) then Microsoft can't go after the company directors personal goods. They can get in line with all of the other creditors of the business and fight over whats left after the government have taken everything that's owed to them.
That's what limited liability means if I remember my A level Business Studies correctly.
Paris ? Because you know that she'll get everything that's coming to her.....
The corporate world seems to be the rah- rah cheerleader for unfettered unregulated "free" let- the- market- decide commerce as long as they can play the market by hiring cheap labor in whichever country is the sweatshop du jour and extorting tax breaks/ giveaways out of various levels of government under threat of relocation (only to pack up their tents once they sniff out a more profitable location elsewhere). But heaven forfend anyone else (customers, lower- level distributors/ vendors) find their own way to game (or simply survive in) the system. If we scam and plunder, we're entrepreneurs; if you find a way around it, you're a thief. Corporate robber baron hypocrites should all be keel- hauled.
I certainly hope that the courts adopt the same zero-tolerance approach that Microsoft is crowing about to Microsofts continuing anti-competitive business dealings? Or that the courts adopt the same zero-tolerance approach to Microsoft breaching confidentiality agreements? Or is it asking too much that rich, well connected corporations be held to the same standards as everyone else?
Nicely done though. On the one hand Microsoft lobbies for "free trade" between the US and various other countries in order to be able to force their crap down other peoples throats without protection for the local players. Then the other hand uses all the protectionist measures they can in order to stop the local punters from getting a better deal on something that really is overpriced. All because said punters are too fucking stupid to stop locking themselves into that product.
As they say, an idiot and its money are soon parted. Microsoft is just making sure that the process happens more quickly.
so they can outsource your jobs abroad, then sell you their products for a price higher than most other countries cough up, and of course you'll have to pay up because they have a monopoly on operating systems ... if you try to do anything about it they'll sue you into bankruptcy ..... sounds like a pretty straight forward case of the American dream (TM) at work ....
Kevin (and others on similar lines): (1)you're not the only one to think that directors are not in general personally liable for any debts which their limited companies may incur (2) It's also interesting to see MS (ab)using the law to enforce their business practices whilst at the same time MS are ignoring the courts which have fined MS for other aspects of their business practices...
In fact I posted a comment here on similar lines yesterday.
It also had a small and relatively polite comment about the scare value of MS's press release which I assume is behind this article ("look what will happen to you if you try this") and about what the "value add" might be in El Reg's apparent rehashing of the MS press release.
My comment from yesterday hasn't arrived although comments posted later have arrived.
Maybe this one won't get censored.
Black helicopter ? Because there's one on the way to El Reg if this comment gets "moderated...".
"Microsoft takes a zero tolerance approach to anyone who undermines the level playing field for our reseller community"
Thats an interesting new definition of 'level'...
...its more a heavily-tilted-in-the-direction-of-microsoft sort of 'level' where resellers pay a fee to microsoft when they sell hardware without an m$ operating system pre-loaded.
Scumbags.
Come on, for those of us that know Mr Omeshu I am sure he will have covered himself off, I will be amazed if they can get any money out of him.
I am sure the reason you couldnt get hold of Mr Omeshu is because he is probably sunning himself, somewhere nice, or in India discussing with his developers his next "get rich" campaign, which of course may have already been thought up by someone else, but if he can make a buck before them, then he will try!
"Microsoft takes a zero tolerance approach to anyone who undermines the level playing field for our reseller community"
...and yet the reason that the playing field is not level is because MS charges different prices in different countries. This is a curious new use of the word 'zero' I'm unfamiliar with. Are MS applying their embrace and extend policy to English now as well? If so they might want to try with 'hypocrit' next.
It looks like they snuck something in about an IP violation, but if the chap can find his "old" employment contract it should state that the company will take liability and cover him in the event of any IP dispute. So MS can go back to the company for settlement!
I have always felt that if something has a price tag it should be the same base with only transportation and local taxes different so to me the pirates are actually Microsoft. and Corel. and Adobe-
On the IP front, Microsoft have taken their ideas from the rest of the world ever since they started, the US legal system allows them to have IP patents but do they actually have any genuine IP other than their particular products with proprietary formats. I am not so sure.
Wardell, who bullishly said on Wednesday that "Microsoft takes a zero tolerance approach to anyone who undermines the level playing field for our reseller community"
Level playing field!?!? ROTFLMAO! Said without a shred of fucking irony on his part no doubt!
I'm sure Microsoft spare no effort in leveling the playing field, in the same way America spared no effort leveling Baghdad! This is why I'm not buying Vista*, not because it's bloated and ugly and insecure, I just don't want to give these shits any more money.
Roger Heathcote.
Ok for the dickhead on this forum.
Yes you may not agree that customers pay more because of price fixing, but at the end of the day, this company was not doing it for your benefit, yes that's right!
They were doing it to gain a underhanded competetive advantage over legit businesses, those that obey the law.
It seems the anti MS people just have a go without thinking of what is being done, the usual 12 year old rants this site is becoming, the bash MS because it's cool to do so.
How would you feel if you bought this software and found there was no support for it (as many people found with imported Cisco gear).
How would you feel if you lost your job because your business went bust because you were being unfairly undercut and lost sales?
Don't feel sorry for the MD, he was a crook, and despite agreeing to change his ways, continued to trade illegaly. He most likely has a nice little house and nest egg to keep him going for sometime...
Yes there is too much $1 = £1 conversion going on, but don't think that one importer is doing it for your benefit....
So what happened to free trade?
Anyone should be able to purchase something in one country and sell it in another. As far as I am aware this is not illegal YET!
The problem this chap had was that he ran an a company with an "authorised" channel and that included an agreement which prohibited grey importing.
If the company was a limited company I can't see how they can go after him personally, the reason why it is called a LIMITED company is that liability is limited to the company. So how on earth did they get a judgement against him personally?
MS has enough bad press and it should not punish people for taking advantage of world price differences.
"How would you feel if you lost your job because your business went bust because you were being unfairly undercut and lost sales?"
I'd have been looking to engage with a "business partner" other than one whose business practices were barely legal and whose earnings were commercially unjustifiable in any half-sensible fair (not free) global market.
'Course there are currently plenty of folks whose vision is limited to the MS world. They're heading for a rough time in the next few years, just like the DEC-dependent/VMS-dependent ones found they were in a decade or more ago.
And there are other folks, apparently including the bloke in this picture, who are just downright dodgy.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
