Microsoft’s acquisition of Nokia’s handset and services business has taken an important hurdle after receiving antirust approval from China, subject to certain patent related conditions.
The clearance is the last missing crucial step that until now…
Microsoft’s acquisition of Nokia’s handset and services business has taken an important hurdle after receiving antirust approval from China, subject to certain patent related conditions.
The clearance is the last missing crucial step that until now stood in the way of deal closure.
In late March the companies had been forced to push back the expected closing date from Q1 to April 2014 when it became clear that they would not be able to secure all outstanding clearance decisions on time.
The €5.4bn deal, that also includes a large patent portfolio valued at €1.65bn, was agreed in September last year. The US Federal Trade Commission, the European Commission and numerous other antitrust regulators globally approved the deal in 2013 already, leaving China as the last crucial jurisdiction where a decision was outstanding until now.
David Howard, a Microsoft deputy general counsel, said in a blog post that the Chinese Ministry of Commerce approved the deal subject to a number of guarantees by Microsoft about its future conduct with regards to licensing of some of its patents.
“It has never been our intent to change our [licensing] practices after we acquire the Nokia business, so while we disagreed with the premise that our incentives might change in the future, we were happy to discuss commitments on this basis,” Howard wrote.
Nokia noted in a statement today that “the regulatory approval process has involved a thorough review of Nokia’s patent licensing practices by several competition authorities around the world. During that process, no authority has challenged Nokia’s compliance with its FRAND undertakings related to standard-essential patents (licensing on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms) or requested that Nokia make changes to its licensing program or royalty terms.”
