Comes v. Microsoft Corp.
Decision Date | 12 June 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 00-1268.,00-1268. |
Citation | 646 N.W.2d 440 |
Parties | Joe COMES and Comes Vending, Inc., Appellants, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation, Appellee. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Roxanne Barton Conlin of Roxanne Conlin & Associates, P.C., Des Moines, for appellants.
Donald G. Ribble of Lynch, Dallas, Smith & Harman, P.C., Cedar Rapids, and Joseph E. Neuhaus, Alphonzo A. Grant, Jr., and David B. Tulchin of Sullivan & Cromwell, New York, New York, for appellee.
A group of computer consumers filed suit alleging Microsoft Corporation maintained or used a monopoly in conjunction with its Windows 98 operating system for the purpose of excluding competition or controlling, fixing, or maintaining prices in violation of the Iowa Competition Law. See Iowa Code §§ 553.4, 553.5 (1997). On appeal, the consumers urge us to find our state antitrust law is not controlled by federal law, and thereby allow them to sue in Iowa as indirect purchasers. We conclude the Iowa Competition Law is not controlled by federal law and indirect purchasers may maintain an antitrust action in state court. Therefore, the motion to dismiss should have been denied. We reverse and remand.
Joe Comes is a resident of Polk County, Iowa. Comes Vending, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Iowa. Comes and Comes Vending purchased a Gateway Solo Computer directly from Gateway. The computers came with Windows 98 operating system pre-installed. As a precondition to using Windows 98, they became end-user licensees of Microsoft as to the operation and use of Windows 98. Comes and Comes Vending registered its ownership of the licenses with Microsoft via electronic mail.
Microsoft is a for-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington. Microsoft's focus is primarily on developing and licensing computer software. Microsoft is the world's leading supplier of operating systems for personal computers.
The Class asserted that by virtue of its status as end-user licensees, it incurred a monopoly price charged by Microsoft for use of Windows 98. Microsoft filed a motion to dismiss claiming chapter 553 must be interpreted consistently with federal law and under federal law the Class was deemed to be comprised of indirect purchasers barred from recovering damages for alleged antitrust violation. See Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720, 97 S.Ct. 2061, 52 L.Ed.2d 707 (1977).
The Iowa district court, persuaded by the policies of Illinois Brick, granted the motion to dismiss. The court concluded the indirect purchaser rule set forth in Illinois Brick applied to the Iowa Competition Law. The court noted the similarity between the federal and state statutes, prior interpretations by this court consistent with federal antitrust law, and the statutory directive to "harmonize" state and federal antitrust laws. The court further found this case did not fall within any of the limited exceptions to Illinois Brick. The Class appeals.
On appeal, the Class argues this court should hold Illinois Brick does not apply and that if it does apply they are direct, not indirect, users under Microsoft's licensing agreement. In the alternative, the Class argues they fall within the exceptions to Illinois Brick allowing suits by indirect purchasers.
We review the grant of a motion to dismiss for correction of errors at law. State v. Hoegh, 632 N.W.2d 885, 887 (Iowa 2001). We will affirm the dismissal of a claim only if the petition shows no right of recovery under any state of the facts. Barnes v. State, 611 N.W.2d 290, 292 (Iowa 2000). In reviewing the trial court's grant of Microsoft's motion to dismiss, we consider the allegations in the petition in the light most favorable to the Class. See Sanford v. Manternach, 601 N.W.2d 360, 363 (Iowa 1999).
The only issue on appeal is whether the United States Supreme Court case, Illinois Brick, should be followed in interpreting the Iowa Competition Law. The Class argues this case should not be applied because the Iowa Competition Law does not limit the class of plaintiffs who may bring a state antitrust suit. Microsoft argues Iowa must harmonize the Iowa Competition Law with federal law articulated in Illinois Brick such that only direct purchasers may recover damages for antitrust violations. We now turn to the holding of Illinois Brick and its applicability to our state competition law.
Iowa Code § 553.5. The Iowa Competition Law also authorizes a very broad category of persons to maintain a suit in our state courts for damages resulting from anticompetitive conduct.
[A] person who is injured ... by conduct prohibited under this chapter may bring suit to: ... [r]ecover actual damages resulting from conduct prohibited under this chapter.
Id. § 553.12(2).
Id. at 489, 88 S.Ct. at 2229, 20 L.Ed.2d at 1239. In effect, the Hanover Shoe Court acknowledged that in a system allowing pass ons, the real victims—those who paid extra money as a result of the pass on— are not compensated. However, in the interests of antitrust public policies, the Court concluded the defendants should not be allowed to use the pass on theory as a defense.2 The Court would later revisit similar antitrust issues in Illinois Brick. In Illinois Brick, the State of Illinois brought suit against concrete block manufacturers, alleging price fixing in violation of section four of the Clayton Act. See 15 U.S.C. § 15. The provision of the Clayton Act at issue there provides "[a]ny person who shall be injured ... by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may bring suit to recover damages sustained by him." Id. The United States Supreme Court held the state was an indirect purchaser because it did not buy concrete blocks directly from the manufacturers. Illinois Brick, 431 U.S. at 726,97 S.Ct. at 2065,52 L.Ed.2d at 713. The Court drew a line at which the law will not permit remote antitrust claims to be asserted. This bright line has become known as the "indirect-purchaser rule."
The rule provides indirect purchasers are barred from bringing claims for overcharges under federal law. Id. at 728-29, 97 S.Ct. at 2065-66, 52 L.Ed.2d at 714. The Court explained the "direct purchaser, and not others in the chain of manufacture or distribution, is the party `injured in his business or property' within the meaning of [section 4 of the Clayton Act]." Id. Accordingly, the Court concluded federal antitrust law bars claims by indirect purchasers. Id. at 745-46, 97 S.Ct. at 2074-75, 52 L.Ed.2d at 725.
Over ten years after Illinois Brick, the United States Supreme Court clarified the extent of its ruling. The Court was faced with the question of whether state statutes expressly granting standing to indirect purchasers were preempted by federal law to the contrary. It held nothing in the Sherman Act3 or in Illinois Brick prevents the states from allowing indirect purchasers to bring antitrust actions, even if this results in multiple recoveries. California v. ARC Am. Corp., 490 U.S. 93, 101-02, 109 S.Ct. 1661, 1665, 104 L.Ed.2d 86, 95 (1989). However, this decision itself did not create a cause of action for indirect purchasers to pursue.4 It merely authorized the states to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sullivan v. DB Invs., Inc.
...(noting that antitrust standing “has prudential limits based on remoteness of injury and complexity of proof”); Comes v. Microsoft Corp., 646 N.W.2d 440, 449 (Iowa 2002) (“[T]he Illinois Brick court was wholly concerned with the complexity of litigation and the possibility of multiple liabi......
-
In re Digital Music Antitrust Litig.
...R. 142–9–2; Wis. Stat. § 133.18(1)(a); Bunker's Glass Co. v. Pilkington PLC, 206 Ariz. 9, 75 P.3d 99, 102 (2003); Comes v. Microsoft Corp., 646 N.W.2d 440, 441 (Iowa 2002); Sherwood v. Microsoft Corp., No. M2000–01850, 2003 WL 21780975, at *29 (Tenn.Ct.App. July 31, 2003). Massachusetts is ......
-
In re Digital Music Antitrust Litigation
...and interpretation of state law as to what conduct is governed by the law satisfies the harmonization provision. Comes v. Microsoft Corp., 646 N.W.2d 440, 446 (Iowa 2002); accord Hyde v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 123 N.C.App. 572, 579, 473 S.E.2d 680, 685 (N.C.Ct.App.1996) (declining to follow Il......
-
Sherwood v. Microsoft Corporation
...construed to carry out its purposes. Thus, the court found that "a person" includes indirect purchasers. Similarly, in Comes v. Microsoft, 646 N.W.2d 440 (Iowa 2002), the court determined that Iowa's harmonization provision did not require Iowa courts to interpret its state antitrust statut......
-
Liability for Indirect Purchaser Claims
...suits by indirect purchasers and that allowing indirect purchaser suits would serve Arizona’s policy goals); Comes v. Microsoft Corp., 646 N.W.2d 440, 445 (Iowa 2002) (holding that the language of IOWA CODE § 553.12, which provides simply that "‘[a] person who [was] injured . . . by [prohib......
-
Table of cases
...v Harmar Bottling Co., 218 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. 2006) .................................................. 22, 32, 33 Comes v. Microsoft Corp., 646 N.W.2d 440 (Iowa 2002) ............................................................. 24 Commonwealth v. McHugh, 93 N.E.2d 751 (Mass. 1950) ................
-
Appendix A. Survey Of State Indirect Purchaser Jurisprudence and Legislation
...licensees of the defendant’s software despite their having purchased their licenses through a distributor; following Comes v. Microsoft, 646 N.W.2d 440 (Iowa 2002), in rejecting Illinois Brick). 218. 272 Neb. 489, 723 N.W.2d 293 (Neb. 2006). Appendix A 427 announced in Illinois Brick,” 219 ......
-
Table of cases
...S. Ct. 1426, 185 L. Ed. 2d 515 (2013), 184, 195, 198, 199, 202, 204, 207, 221, 235, 239, 243 Table of Cases 485 Comes v. Microsoft Corp., 646 N.W.2d 440 (Iowa 2002), 30, 32, 61, 162, 416, 428, 467 Comes v. Microsoft Corp., 696 N.W.2d 318 (Iowa 2005), 223, 237, 253, 417 Comes v. Microsoft Co......