VMware appears to have won an early procedural victory in its lawsuit against Siemens. The judge ruled in favour of VMware’s position that the US court has jurisdiction, despite Siemens’s request to move the case to Germany.

The case began in March 2025, when VMware discovered that Siemens’s US branch had provided a list of software that included many more products than had been licensed. VMware sued Siemens because, according to VMware, the industrial group refused to cooperate with a license audit and demanded that VMware provide extended product support for potentially unlicensed software.

Siemens referred to contracts that, according to the company, stipulate that disputes must be heard in German courts. VMware, on the other hand, argued that the alleged use of unlicensed software occurred in the US, giving US courts proper jurisdiction.

On Tuesday, Judge D. Hatcher of the Delaware District Court indicated her support for VMware’s argument. She published a Report and Recommendation stating that Siemens’s attempt to move the case to Germany should be rejected.

Such reports indicate the logic and precedents that are likely to influence a future decision. Both parties have 14 days to file objections, but those submissions are limited to ten pages. This restriction is intended to force those involved in the lawsuit to focus on the issues in the report rather than exploring new arguments.

The lawsuit against Siemens is not an isolated incident. Broadcom has intensified its VMware license audits since the acquisition. The company moved away from perpetual licenses and is forcing customers to switch to expensive subscription bundles. This has led to tensions with several large organisations.

For VMware, the case against Siemens appears to be proceeding in the desired court for now. The virtualisation giant can now continue to litigate in the US over the alleged use of unlicensed software. Whether Siemens will still object to the judge’s recommendation will become clear in the next two weeks.

Dell has filed a claim against VMware in the software licensing dispute brought by supermarket giant Tesco and wants the virtualisation giant should fork over at least £10 million under certain circumstances.

As reported last year, Tesco sued VMware’s owner Broadcom and reseller Computacenter for not providing software licenses and support services the retail giant believes it is entitled to under a 2021 contract.

That deal saw Tesco acquire perpetual licenses for VMware software, services, plus software upgrade rights and the right to extend its services contract. Under Broadcom’s ownership, VMware only sells subscriptions and won’t sell or extend support contracts for customers who continue to use perpetually licensed software. Tesco acquired its VMware licenses from reseller Computacenter, which the retailer named as a co-defendant for failing to provide software licenses as allegedly contracted.

Computacenter later filed a claim against Broadcom, and against Dell.

When Tesco struck its contract, Dell was a VMware distributor. Computacenter believes its reseller relationship with the hardware giant included an obligation to provide VMware software.

Last week, Dell filed a claim against VMware’s UK and global entities (VMware UK and IL).

“Dell alleges that VMware UK and (in the alternative) VMware IL are subject to obligations to provide certain goods and services … and have breached their obligations to do so,” a court filing states.

Dell therefore wants “damages, specific performance, interest and/or such further or other relief as the Court considers appropriate from VMware,” and claims it “expects to recover more than £10,000,000.”

Dell will only seek the above from VMware if Computacenter succeeds in its action.

Dell has also filed its defence against Computacenter’s claims, in which it argues that its contract with the reseller only required it “to communicate any renewal request made by Tesco to VMware.”

Even that obligation, Dell argues, “was conditional on VMware’s continued willingness to supply the products and services in question and/or on Dell being permitted by VMware to continue to act as an authorised distributor.”

Dell terminated its distribution deal with VMware in 2024, so now can’t provide software to Computacenter or Tesco.

Broadcom is unwilling to supply the products Tesco wants or to support them. The chips and code giant says the software Tesco wants is end of life, no longer on sale, and it therefore can’t be compelled to provide or support it.

All of which leaves Tesco, Broadcom, Computacenter, and Dell in a four-way stand-off.

Tesco’s early filings in the case said VMware’s software is “essential for the operations and resilience of Tesco’s business and its ability to supply groceries to consumers across the UK and Republic of Ireland.”

Broadcom says it tried to offer Tesco a new deal, but that the mega-retailer “failed to meaningfully address” its proposals.

VMware is taking Allstate to federal court, accusing the insurer of obstructing a software licensing audit and ignoring key reporting and record-keeping duties.

In a filing dated December 15, 2025, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, VMware LLC lays out its side of a dispute with Allstate Insurance Company over how the carrier managed, reported and documented its use of VMware software.

The case centres on what VMware claims are breaches of a long‑standing licensing framework that includes a Master End User License Agreement, an Enterprise License Agreement and an amendment to that ELA.

According to the filing, VMware and Allstate entered into a Master End User License Agreement on December 12, 2008. VMware says Section 3.8 of that agreement, titled “Audit Rights,” requires Allstate to maintain accurate records of its use of VMware software for at least two years from the last day on which support and subscription services expired for the applicable software.

The same provision, VMware says, allows VMware or its designees to inspect Allstate’s records and computing devices to verify that the software was used in line with the contract and that all license and support fees were paid. If an audit shows an underpayment of more than 10% for the audited period, Allstate must repay the audit costs as well as any underpaid fees, according to the filing.

The dispute also involves what VMware calls the “ELA Contracts” — an Enterprise License Agreement executed on September 30, 2019, and Amendment No. 1 to that ELA signed on July 29, 2022. VMware says the ELA granted Allstate a license to use certain VMware software for a three‑year period and made clear that Allstate’s use of VMware software remained subject to the Master Agreement.

The 2022 amendment, VMware says, granted Allstate rights to additional VMware software and extended the ELA period to July 29, 2025. Under these agreements, VMware alleges, Allstate was required to report the total number of licenses it deployed on specified dates, to provide additional information reasonably requested to confirm compliance and to maintain accurate records sufficient to show that it and its affiliates followed the terms.

The relationship reportedly soured in 2025. VMware says that on March 4, 2025, it issued a formal audit notice to Allstate under the Master Agreement’s audit clause, telling Allstate that any changes in its environment during the license review process had to be reported promptly. After an introductory call, VMware emailed Allstate on April 11, 2025, saying that audit workstream teams would reach out to schedule kick‑offs. VMware’s audit partner, Connor Consulting, then contacted Allstate on April 16, 2025, and later held an audit kick‑off call on May 5, 2025, providing a technical questionnaire, a deployment detail workbook and scripts.

From there, VMware describes a pattern of delay. Connor Consulting followed up in May 2025, stressing the need to return the technical questionnaire to keep the audit on track. The filing says Allstate acknowledged receiving the materials but said it could not meet the requested timing.

VMware recounts further follow‑ups in May, June and July, including a July 22, 2025 update in which Allstate allegedly identified August 29, 2025 as its target date to return completed audit materials. When that date arrived, VMware says, Allstate still had not provided the promised information.

In September, things took a sharper turn. On September 12, 2025, according to VMware, Allstate told its consultant that VMware had been “removed from all devices” and that Allstate could not execute the scripts because they depended on “having VMware components running in the environment.” Allstate also said it had “no access to data” and was unable to populate the technical questionnaire, VMware says. Allstate did send a technical questionnaire for a “NatGen VMware ELA” environment, but VMware characterises it as “woefully incomplete.” A follow‑up email from VMware’s consultant on September 15, 2025, with additional questions, reportedly went unanswered.

On October 1, 2025, Allstate informed VMware that “all VMware instances have been terminated and removed from Allstate’s VMware ELA environment” and declared the audit “complete and satisfied, in compliance with the contractual entitlements, with no further action or obligation from Allstate,” the filing states. Allstate also redirected future correspondence to counsel.

VMware contends that terminating VMware instances and unilaterally declaring the audit complete does not relieve Allstate of its obligations to maintain accurate records, provide required deployment reports and permit an audit for the ELA period.

The company says Allstate’s conduct has impaired its ability to verify whether Allstate underpaid fees for the audited period or otherwise failed to comply with the agreements, and notes that if an audit reveals an underpayment of more than 10%, Allstate would be required to cover VMware’s audit costs in addition to any unpaid amounts.

VMware is asking the court for damages in an amount to be determined at trial, an order requiring Allstate to provide complete access to records, data, systems, computing devices and other materials necessary to verify compliance, and an injunction barring Allstate from destroying, altering or concealing relevant records. It is also seeking a declaratory judgement that the Master Agreement and ELA Contracts should be interpreted in line with VMware’s view and that Allstate’s contrary position is without merit.

Microsoft is fighting a massive £2.1 billion lawsuit in the UK that accuses the tech giant of using its Windows Server software to tilt the cloud computing market in its favour. The case, which could reshape how software licensing works in the cloud era, alleges Microsoft has been systematically overcharging thousands of British businesses that run Windows Server on rival platforms like Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud, and Alibaba Cloud.

The lawsuit landed at London’s Competition Appeal Tribunal this week, with competition lawyer Maria Luisa Stasi arguing on behalf of nearly 60,000 businesses that Microsoft’s pricing practices create an uneven playing field. According to court filings, companies using Windows Server on competing cloud services face higher licensing fees than those running the same software on Microsoft’s own Azure platform. That’s not exactly subtle, it’s like charging more for gasoline if you’re not filling up at the company’s own stations.

Here’s the thing: Stasi’s legal team claims this isn’t just about pricing. They argue Microsoft intentionally “degrades the user experience of Windows Server” on rival clouds as part of what they call “a coherent abusive strategy to leverage Microsoft’s dominant position.”

Microsoft, unsurprisingly, wants the case thrown out. The company argues that Stasi’s legal team hasn’t provided a proper framework for calculating alleged losses and maintains that its vertically integrated business model – where it both licenses Windows Server to competitors and uses it as a foundation for Azure, actually benefits competition. A Microsoft spokesperson reportedly pointed to what they called “the reality of a sector that has never been so dynamic and competitive.”

This legal battle comes at an awkward time for Microsoft, which just announced a $23 billion global investment plan earlier this week to expand its cloud and AI infrastructure. The company’s cloud business has been growing rapidly, with Azure competing fiercely against AWS and Google Cloud in a market that generated $90 billion in revenue just in the fourth quarter of 2024.

Regulators on both sides of the Atlantic have been watching Microsoft’s cloud practices closely. Back in July, Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority released a report concluding that Microsoft’s licensing rules “materially disadvantaged AWS and Google” by making it more costly or less efficient for customers to run key software elsewhere. European regulators have also been examining whether cloud giants have amassed too much influence, with concerns ranging from data portability to restrictive licensing.

At £2.1 billion (about $2.8 billion), it represents a significant collective action against a tech company in the UK. And it arrives as cloud computing transitions from being a nice-to-have utility to the essential infrastructure powering everything from AI development to enterprise software.

If the tribunal allows the case to proceed, it could force Microsoft to fundamentally rethink how it licenses Windows Server in cloud environments. More broadly, it might set precedents for how dominant software companies can leverage their existing products to gain advantage in new markets. For the thousands of UK businesses caught in the middle, the outcome could mean huge refunds or confirmation that they’ll need to factor these pricing disparities into their cloud strategy moving forward.

The hearing continues at the Competition Appeal Tribunal, with a decision on whether to certify the case expected in the coming weeks. Either way, the cloud computing wars just got a lot more expensive.

VMware has come out swinging in its case against Siemens over alleged unlicensed use of its software.

The Broadcom business unit launched the case in March, when it alleged that during negotiations over a support contract Siemens provided a list of the VMware software it used. That list, Broadcom alleged, mentioned many more products than Siemens had licensed.

In VMware’s telling, as negotiations progressed Siemens demanded the virtualisation giant support its software – something VMware doesn’t do for products sold under perpetual licenses – and didn’t address its alleged use of unlicensed software. Talks stalled, and Broadcom decided to file a copyright case over the issue of Siemens’ alleged use of unlicensed software.

The case then went quiet, save for Siemens arguing that its software licenses mean it can move the matter to Germany instead of the US court for the District of Delaware in which VMware brought its case. Siemens also argued that this was a contractual matter, not a copyright claim.

On Wednesday, VMware fired back with filings that argue Siemens’ interpretation of its software licenses is wrong and the agreements do not allow the case to be heard in Germany, as the defendant has sought. The virtualisation pioneer also criticised Siemens’ attempt to turn the matter into a contractual dispute rather than a copyright claim.

“Like any infringer, Siemens would like to limit its exposure after the fact to a mere contract claim,” states a letter from VMware’s lawyers to the court.

“Siemens fundamentally mischaracterises what has led to this suit,” the letter states. “VMware did not cause or ask for the circumstances that gave rise to the suit. Siemens caused the problem by improperly obtaining and using a large number of VMware products for which it never purchased a license.”

The letter asks the court to consider the arguments, and not to let Siemens move the case to Germany.

“Because copyright protection is territorial, as Siemens itself acknowledges, suits to address infringement are brought in each relevant country. As a U.S. company, VMware chose to begin in the United States, under the law and procedures with which it is most familiar,” the letter states.

That language strongly hints that VMware will happily run copyright claims in multiple jurisdictions.

The facts of this case are similar to those in VMware’s disputes with UK supermarket giant Tesco and AT&T. VMware and the telco giant settled that case in about four months. The Tesco matter, which kicked off in July, is ongoing.

The Siemens case has now run for eight months and doesn’t look like settling in a hurry.

The core of these disputes is Broadcom’s decision not to sell support services for older software sold under perpetual licenses, and hardly ever selling VMware software other than the Cloud Foundation (VCF) private cloud suite. Analysts rate VCF as the best product in its class, but it is not cheap and those who adopt the product report their VMware bills rise by 300 percent or more. Broadcom counters that VCF pays for itself quickly, and that by bundling many VMware products and support it is actually cheaper than the cost of buying all the components of the suite. Users, however, don’t always want everything included in VCF.

Broadcom CEO Hock Tan has acknowledged that some VMware customers have acquired VCF without implementing it fully, and in September said his company has two years of hard work to address that situation.

VMware will end support for version 8.0 of its products on October 11, 2027, just a few weeks after the end of the two-year period Tan mentioned. Many organisations contemplating a move away from VMware, or reducing their use of the product, have circled that date on their calendars as a deadline for migration projects to alternative platforms.

Microsoft failed to persuade that ValueLicensing breached copyright rules through its bulk resale of the tech giant’s software licenses, the UK’s specialised competition court ruled Wednesday.

JJH Enterprises, trading as ValueLicensing, filed a lawsuit in 2021 after it said Microsoft had broken UK and EU competition rules through customer deals that stifled the supply and resale of pre-owned licenses for, primarily, its best-selling Windows operating system and the Office productivity suite.

According to the claim, ValueLicensing says Microsoft abused its market dominance and conducted anticompetitive agreements in squeezing the market for one-off, perpetual licenses through a push for businesses to take up Microsoft’s own cloud-based subscription model, sold under the name M365.

However, according to ValueLicensing, in May 2023 Microsoft then advanced a “new” case that it was not lawful to resell pre-owned Office and Windows software at all.

In a ruling Wednesday, the Competition Appeal Tribunal said it came to a unanimous verdict, which favoured ValueLicensing.

The copyright matter was heard at a two-day trial in September as “preliminary issues”; ones that have the potential to end proceedings early.

In September, ValueLicensing told the court it was tasked to determine points relating to “copyright exhaustion” over bulk licenses of software and works consisting of both computer program elements and non-program elements.

The company argued that distribution rights in the copy of a computer program are exhausted on the first sale of that copy, and the rights-holder can’t prevent any further distribution of that copy.

Microsoft disagreed with ValueLicensing’s arguments.

In a ruling on Wednesday, the CAT made two findings.

First, that exhaustion under the UK’s Software Directive operates by law and is “not limited by contractual terms” in Microsoft’s enterprise agreements. Further, that the distribution and reproduction rights “enjoyed by Microsoft in their products do not prevent the subdivision and resale of licenses obtained by the first acquirer.”

Second, that the first online sale of Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office in electronic form exhausts the distribution and/or reproduction right “in all works supplied and inevitably downloaded as part of those products,” to the extent those works are “distributed, downloaded and copied in accordance with the intended purpose” for which the programs were first sold.

ValueLicensing buys in bulk pre-owned — often older — Microsoft software licenses, and then resells them to business and enterprise customers. But it argues that Microsoft’s behaviour caused it hundreds of millions of pounds in lost revenue, therefore it must be compensated for the loss.

Microsoft denies the allegations in the claim, including that its activities amount to an abuse under competition rules.

At the end of last year, ValueLicensing failed in its bid to strike out parts of Microsoft’s defence to fight the lawsuit.