Robert Pogson

The BC Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims that M$ overcharged them by finding that the plaintiffs did not buy from M$ and so had no standing to sue M$.

see British Columbia Court of Appeal Allows Microsoft Appeal in Pro-Sys v. Microsoft – Creates de facto Passing-on Defence

So there you have it. The criminal is too large to sue and his partners in organized crime, the OEMs and retailers are just stooges. Someone will have to lean on the retailers because the OEMs mostly do not operate in Canada.

“… were it to be otherwise, in the absence of the passing-on defence, a defendant would be liable for both the whole of the charge passed on (liability to the direct purchasers) and for all or any portion of the charge passed on (liability to the indirect purchasers) … [that] would result in double recovery … which our law does not permit.”

Duh… It’s not “double recovery”. The conspirators conspired to set up their criminal organization that way. Make them pay for it. That’s a judgment to be made in penalty phase, what portion of the overcharging was due to M$. Pathetic… criminals protected by the legal system.

When consumers complain they are told the competition does not protect them but businesses in competition. When businesses sue, they are kicked out because they did not buy direct from M$.