I have had a reply from the OFT. Ironically enough, the reply came as an attached MS Word document. For interested parties, here is an edited-down version of the reply: "As you may already know, the Director General of Fair Trading (the Director) has responsibility for enforcing competition policy in the UK. The principal piece of competition legislation available to him is the Competition Act 1998 (the Act). The Chapter I prohibition prohibits agreements between undertakings that may affect trade within the United Kingdom (UK) and have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the UK. The Chapter II prohibition prohibits conduct on the part of one or more undertakings which amounts to the abuse of a dominant position in a market if it may affect trade within the UK. The Act gives the Director powers to investigate if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an undertaking is infringing either of the prohibitions and powers to impose fines up to a maximum of 10% of turnover. ... As regards the Act, the Act applies to agreements between undertakings (Chapter I) or the conduct of undertakings (Chapter II). Pursuant to section 60 of the Act, the definition of an undertaking depends on the case law of the European Court of Justice. In Höfner & Elser1, the European Court of Justice said: 'in the context of competition law,...the concept of an undertaking encompasses every entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of the legal status of the entity and the way in which it is financed'. As such, the NHS could be an undertaking when it is engaging in economic activity but will probably not be acting as an undertaking when it is exercising its 'public interest-type' functions. The NHS will not, therefore, be an undertaking for the purposes of the Chapter I and II prohibitions to the extent that they are purchasing services for the purpose of improving healthcare services for the benefit of society in general using monies raised by taxation. To summarise, while Microsoft Limited is undoubtedly and undertaking for the purposes of the Act, the NHS is unlikely to be an undertaking. As such, there is not agreement between undertakings for the purposes of the Chapter I prohibition. Further, as the NHS is not an undertaking there can be no breach of the Chapter II prohibition by the NHS." In other words, the OFT's excuse for not investigating is based on legal word games rather than a substantive argument. I sent a reply debating these points, concluding with: "I contend that the NHS is engaging in an economic activity when it makes a purchasing decision. Consequent to this, I contend that the NHS is an undertaking as defined in Höfner & Elser. As you say, there is no debate on the status of Microsoft Limited; it is clearly an undertaking. I also contend that one effect of this purchasing decision is the distortion of competition within the UK (as the action has significantly raised the barrier to competitors attempting to sell to the NHS, which is a large economic entity). Therefore, I contend that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that one or both of the NHS and Microsoft Limited is/are infringing the Chapter I prohibition, and thus the Act gives the Director powers to investigate." Full texts are available on request. Michael