NOTE 17    CONTINGENCIES

Government competition law matters.    On March 25, 2004, the European Commission issued a decision in its competition law investigation of us. The Commission concluded that we infringed European competition law by refusing to provide our competitors with licenses to certain protocol technology in the Windows server operating systems and by including streaming media playback functionality in Windows desktop operating systems. The Commission ordered us to make the relevant licenses to our technology available to our competitors and to develop and make available a version of the Windows desktop operating system that does not include specified software relating to media playback. The decision also imposed a fine of €497 million, which resulted in a charge in the third quarter of fiscal year 2004 of €497 million ($605 million). We filed an appeal of the decision to the Court of First Instance on June 6, 2004. On December 22, 2004, the Court ordered that we must comply with the decision pending review on appeal and we are taking steps to ensure we are in compliance. The hearing on the appeal occurred in April 2006. We continue to contest the conclusion that European competition law was infringed and will defend our position vigorously. In December 2005, the Commission issued a Statement of Objections that preliminarily concluded we were not in full compliance with the 2004 decree. In March 2006, the Commission conducted an oral hearing on the Statement of Objections and our response to the Statement. On July 12, 2006, the European Commission announced its determination that we had not complied with the technical documentation requirements of the 2004 Decision, and levied a fine of €281 million ($351 million). We will appeal this fine to the Court of First Instance.

On December 7, 2005, the Korean Fair Trade Commission (“KFTC”) announced a ruling in its investigation of us, holding that we abused a market dominant position and engaged in unfair trade practices under the Korean Fair Trade Law by incorporating instant messaging and media player functionality into the Windows PC operating system, and streaming media technologies into the Windows server operating system. The KFTC also announced the imposition of remedies, including a fine of approximately $34 million. The KFTC issued its formal written ruling and corrective order on February 23, 2006. The KFTC held that our integration of Windows Media Player and Windows Messenger in Windows PC operating systems and integration of Windows Media Services in Windows server operating systems constituted an abuse of monopoly power and unlawful tying in violation of the Korean Fair Trade Act. Under the order, which became effective August 24, 2006, we can no longer distribute Windows in Korea as currently designed. We are required to develop and distribute in Korea versions of Windows XP and its successors that do not include Windows Media Player or Windows Messenger functionality. In addition, we also may distribute a second modified version of Windows that contains the removed functionality, provided the second version includes promotional links in the user interface that will enable consumers to link to and download a select group of competing media players and instant messengers. We have appealed the KFTC’s decision to the Seoul High Court. On May 22, 2006, the KFTC denied our motion for reconsideration of its ruling. As part of that decision, the KFTC dropped the element of its ruling that prohibited us from including Windows Media Player or Windows Messenger, or any feature with similar functionality, in any product other than the Windows client operating system for which we have a 50% or greater market share. On August 23, 2006, we announced the release to manufacture of the mandated versions of Windows XP Home Edition and Windows XP Professional Edition.

In other ongoing investigations, various foreign governments and several state Attorneys General have requested information from us concerning competition, privacy, and security issues.

Antitrust, and unfair competition, and overcharge class action lawsuits.    A large number of antitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits have been filed against us in various state and federal courts on behalf of variously defined classes of direct and indirect purchasers of our PC operating system and certain software applications products. The federal cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for Maryland. These cases allege that we competed unfairly and unlawfully monopolized alleged markets for operating systems and certain software applications, and they seek to recover alleged overcharges for these products. To date, courts have dismissed all claims for damages in cases brought against us by indirect purchasers under federal law and in 18 states. Ten of those state court decisions have been affirmed on appeal. There was no appeal in five states. In addition, courts in two states refused to certify classes, essentially bringing the litigation to a close. Claims under federal law brought on behalf of foreign purchasers have been dismissed by the U.S. District Court in Maryland as have all claims brought on behalf of consumers seeking injunctive relief under federal law. The ruling on injunctive relief and the ruling dismissing the federal claims of indirect purchasers were appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, together with a ruling denying certification of certain proposed classes of U.S. direct purchasers. On April 18, 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision dismissing the indirect purchaser claims. Courts in 18 states have ruled that indirect purchaser cases may proceed as class actions. In 2003, we reached an agreement with counsel for the California plaintiffs to settle all claims in 27 consolidated cases in that state. Under the settlement, class members will be able to obtain vouchers that entitle the class members to be reimbursed up to the face value of their vouchers for purchases of a wide variety of platform-neutral computer hardware and software. The total value of vouchers issued will depend on the number of class members who make a claim and are issued vouchers. Two-thirds of the value of vouchers unissued or unredeemed by class members will be made available to certain schools in California in the form of vouchers that also may be redeemed for cash against purchases of a wide variety of platform-neutral computer hardware, software, and related services. We also have reached similar agreements to settle all claims in a number of other states. The settlements in these states are structured similarly to the California settlement, except that, among other differences, one-half of the value of vouchers unissued to class members will be made available to certain schools in the relevant states. The maximum value of vouchers to be issued in these settlements, including the California settlement, is approximately $2.5 billion. The actual costs of these settlements will be less than that maximum amount, depending on the number of class members and schools who are issued and redeem vouchers. The settlements in Arizona, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, and West Virginia have received final court approval. We estimate the total cost to resolve all of these cases will range between $1.5 billion and $1.7 billion, with the actual cost dependent upon many unknown factors such as the quantity and mix of products for which claims will be made, the number of eligible class members who ultimately use the vouchers, the nature of hardware and software that is acquired using the vouchers, and the cost of administering the claims process. In accordance with SFAS No. 5, Accounting for Contingencies, and FIN No. 14, Reasonable Estimation of the Amount of a Loss, at June 30, 2006, we have recorded a liability related to these claims of approximately $1.2 billion, which reflects our estimated exposure of $1.5 billion less payments made to date of approximately $300 million, primarily for administrative expenses and legal fees.

Other antitrust litigation and claims.    On August 27, 2004, the City and County of San Francisco, the City of Los Angeles, and Los Angeles, San Mateo, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara Counties filed a putative class action against us in San Francisco Superior Court. The action was brought on behalf of all governmental entities, agencies, and political subdivisions of the State of California that indirectly purchased our operating system or word processing and spreadsheet software during the period from February 18, 1995 to the date of trial in the action. The plaintiffs sought treble damages under California’s Cartwright Act and disgorgement of unlawful profits under its Unfair Competition Act resulting from our alleged combinations to restrain trade, deny competition, and monopolize the world markets for PC operating systems and word processing and spreadsheet applications (and productivity suites including these applications). We removed the case to the U.S. District Court for Maryland. Our motion to dismiss the complaint was granted on April 18, 2005 with leave to file an amended complaint alleging claims under the Cartwright Act based on conduct within the four-year statute of limitation the court ruled applies to the plaintiffs’ claims. We have obtained final approval of settlement of this case, which resolves all claims asserted in the lawsuit.

Patent and intellectual property claims.    We are a defendant in more than 35 patent infringement cases that we are defending vigorously. In the case of Eolas Technologies, Inc. and University of California v. Microsoft, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on February 2, 1999, the plaintiffs alleged infringement by the browser functionality of Windows. On August 11, 2003, the jury awarded the plaintiffs approximately $520 million in damages for infringement from the date the plaintiffs’ patent was issued through September 2001. The plaintiffs are seeking an equitable accounting for damages from September 2001 to the present. On January 14, 2004, the trial court entered final judgment of $565 million, including post-trial interest of $45 million, and entered an injunction against distribution of any new infringing products, but stayed execution of the judgment and the injunction pending our appeal. We appealed and on March 2, 2005 the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the decision and vacated the judgment, ruling that the trial court had erred in excluding certain previous art evidence and ruling as a matter of law on other evidence. The appellate court also reversed the trial court’s decision that the inventors had not engaged in inequitable conduct by failing to reveal material previous art while obtaining the patent. We believe the total cost to resolve this case will not be material to our financial position or results of operations. The actual costs will be dependent upon many unknown factors such as the events of a retrial of the plaintiff’s claims. In Microsoft v. Lucent, filed in the U.S. District Court in San Diego on April 8, 2003, we are seeking a declaratory judgment that we do not infringe any valid patent among a number of patents Lucent has been asserting against computer manufacturers that sell computers with our software pre-installed. The first in a series of back-to-back trials on the various patent groupings is currently set to begin on November 20, 2006. On March 28, 2006, Lucent filed a new lawsuit against us in U.S. District Court in San Diego, claiming that Xbox 360 violates one of the patents that earlier had been dismissed from the older lawsuit. In response to Lucent’s new complaint, we asserted patent infringement counterclaims accusing Lucent of infringing ten Microsoft patents by its sales of various products. No trial date has been set in the new lawsuit. In Amado v. Microsoft, filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 7, 2003, the plaintiff has accused the link table functionality available in Microsoft Access when used with Microsoft Excel. After a jury trial, we were found to infringe one claim of the patent and damages of $8.9 million were awarded. The judge later found for us on our defense of laches, which reduced the damages award to $5.9 million. The court also imposed an injunction against further distribution of the accused feature as part of Microsoft Access, but stayed the injunction pending resolution of all appeals. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment on appeal and Microsoft intends to seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court of one issue. In Z4 Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft, the plaintiff alleged that Microsoft Windows and Office product activation functionality violates its patent rights. In April 2006, the jury rendered a $115 million verdict against us. In August 2006, the trial court increased damages by $25 million pursuant to the jury’s finding of willful infringement. We intend to appeal the verdict. In Veritas Operating Corporation v. Microsoft, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on May 18, 2006, a subsidiary of Symantec has filed an action asserting claims of trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and patent infringement relating to certain storage technologies. Adverse outcomes in some or all of the matters described in this paragraph may result in significant monetary damages or injunctive relief against us, adversely affecting distribution of our operating system or application products. The risks associated with an adverse decision may result in material settlements.

Other.    We are also subject to a variety of other claims and suits that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of our business. While management currently believes that resolving claims against us, individually or in aggregate, will not have a material adverse impact on our financial position, our results of operations, or our cash flows, these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and management’s view of these matters may change in the future.

As of June 30, 2006, we had accrued aggregate liabilities totaling $1.0 billion in other current liabilities and $1.0 billion in other long-term liabilities for all of the contingent matters described in this note. While we intend to vigorously defend these matters, there exists the possibility of adverse outcomes which we estimate could be up to $1.0 billion in aggregate beyond recorded amounts. Were an unfavorable final outcome to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position and on the results of operations for the period in which the effect becomes reasonably estimable.