Title: Elkins v. Microsoft Corp.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Elkins v. Microsoft Corp. (2001-431); 174 Vt. 328; 817 A.2d 9

[Filed 01-Nov-2002]


       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.


                                No. 2001-431


  Richard L. Elkins	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Windham Superior Court


  Microsoft Corporation	                         September Term, 2002


  John P. Wesley, J.

  Kirsten A. Beske, David N. Dunn, and Potter Stewart, Jr. of Potter
    Stewart, Jr. Law Offices, P.C., Brattleboro, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

  Robert Luce of Downs Rachlin Martin, PLLC, Burlington, and David
    Tulchin of Sullivan & Cromwell (Of Counsel), New York, New York, 
    for Defendant-Appellee.

  William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and Julie Brill and David B.
    Borsykowsky, Assistant Attorneys General, Montpelier, for Amicus 
    Curiae State of Vermont.


  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

        
       DOOLEY, J.   This is an appeal from the trial court's dismissal of a
  class action suit brought under the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act (VCFA or the
  Act), 9 V.S.A. § 2451-80g.  Plaintiff,  Richard Elkins, alleged that
  defendant Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft) used its monopoly power to
  overprice the Windows 98 operating system which plaintiff purchased
  pre-installed in a personal computer from a computer manufacturer (called
  original equipment manufacturer or OEM).  Based on the United States
  Supreme Court decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois,