Court Rules Against Consumer Who Took On Microsoft

[link|http://www.technews.com/news/02/175743.html|story]

Court Rules Against Consumer Who Took On Microsoft

By Dick Kelsey, Newsbytes
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, U.S.A.,
09 Apr 2002, 10:16 AM CST

The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled that a consumer cannot sue Microsoft [NASDAQ:MSFT] for using its monopoly to inflate prices for the Windows 98 operating system in a computer he purchased.

The state's highest court affirmed a lower court ruling that Andrew Vacco, as an indirect buyer of the product, was too far removed from Microsoft's conduct to take legal action under state law.

"We are convinced," the court said in a 23-page opinion issued Monday, "that the plaintiff's claimed injuries are too indirect or remote with respect to the defendant's allegedly anticompetitive conduct."

Vacco filed the lawsuit after buying a PC at a retail store in Wallingford, Conn., in September 1999, citing the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) and state antitrust law. He claimed that Microsoft's monopoly forced him to pay more for the operating system than he would have paid in a competitive environment.

A state court granted a Microsoft motion to throw out the complaint, agreeing with the software giant's contention that Vacco was an indirect purchaser of the operating system and therefore ineligible to seek relief under CUTPA and the antitrust act.

Vacco appealed the decision to the Connecticut Appellate Court, and the case was sent to state Supreme Court.

"While not unexpected, I am disappointed in today's ruling," said state attorney general Richard Blumenthal, who supported Vacco's claims and filed a friend of the court brief. Blumenthal said the complaint was separate from the multi-state federal lawsuit against Microsoft.

The ruling shows the need for tougher state laws so "consumers who have been forced to pay artificially inflated prices by illegal monopolists can recover damages \ufffd regardless of whether the product was purchased directly from that monopolist or through a retailer," Blumenthal said in a statement.

The ruling can be seen in its entirety at [link|http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/260cr53.pdf|[link|http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/260cr53.pdf|http://www.jud.stat.../260cr53.pdf]
]

Post #34,952 by lincoln 4/10/02 10:21:41 AM Reply	Court Rules Against Consumer Who Took On Microsoft [link\|http://www.technews.com/news/02/175743.html\|story] Court Rules Against Consumer Who Took On Microsoft By Dick Kelsey, Newsbytes HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, U.S.A., 09 Apr 2002, 10:16 AM CST The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled that a consumer cannot sue Microsoft [NASDAQ:MSFT] for using its monopoly to inflate prices for the Windows 98 operating system in a computer he purchased. The state's highest court affirmed a lower court ruling that Andrew Vacco, as an indirect buyer of the product, was too far removed from Microsoft's conduct to take legal action under state law. "We are convinced," the court said in a 23-page opinion issued Monday, "that the plaintiff's claimed injuries are too indirect or remote with respect to the defendant's allegedly anticompetitive conduct." Vacco filed the lawsuit after buying a PC at a retail store in Wallingford, Conn., in September 1999, citing the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) and state antitrust law. He claimed that Microsoft's monopoly forced him to pay more for the operating system than he would have paid in a competitive environment. A state court granted a Microsoft motion to throw out the complaint, agreeing with the software giant's contention that Vacco was an indirect purchaser of the operating system and therefore ineligible to seek relief under CUTPA and the antitrust act. Vacco appealed the decision to the Connecticut Appellate Court, and the case was sent to state Supreme Court. "While not unexpected, I am disappointed in today's ruling," said state attorney general Richard Blumenthal, who supported Vacco's claims and filed a friend of the court brief. Blumenthal said the complaint was separate from the multi-state federal lawsuit against Microsoft. The ruling shows the need for tougher state laws so "consumers who have been forced to pay artificially inflated prices by illegal monopolists can recover damages \ufffd regardless of whether the product was purchased directly from that monopolist or through a retailer," Blumenthal said in a statement. The ruling can be seen in its entirety at [link\|http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/260cr53.pdf\|[link\|http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/260cr53.pdf\|http://www.jud.stat.../260cr53.pdf] ] lincoln "Four score and seven years ago, I had a better sig"
Post #34,967 by Brandioch 4/10/02 12:29:11 PM Reply	Very common. The only state that I'm sure you can do that in is California. Corporate protectionism just about everywhere else. Bob buys software from------>Vendor who buys it from------>Microsoft. Bob pays higher prices because of MS's monopoly. Bob can't sue Vendor as Vendor isn't setting the price. If anything, Vendor is adding a markup and that should be similar to the other products that Vendor sells. Vendor won't sue Microsoft. Vendor doesn't want to go out of business by pissing off Microsoft. Plus, I'm not even sure that a reseller can sue a monopoly for pricing. So, California, with its history of individual protections, is the only sane state in this instance.
Post #34,969 by Andrew Grygus 4/10/02 12:31:16 PM Reply	This law varies from state to state. In California he would have been allowed to go to trial because the "direct purchase" doctrine does not apply here. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]

Welcome to IWETHEY!