11–20 of 252 posts
Edit: https://www.marketplace.org/2019/11/18/how-amazons-counterfe... has more details and is where OP ironically appears to be ripping off from. Says 1.5 million is 4% of sales, so they did around 37 million in sales.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't imagine Euro visitors are...at all...cared about by a US local news outlet.
Maybe not in general but the issues with Amazon isn’t limited to .com. We get all the same problems with .co.uk, so I’d be interested in reading what happened
I wonder if this is an oversight by Amazon on failing to scale its anti-counterfeit measures. Maybe they didn't appropriately evaluate how large the issue would become and they're stuck with trying to amend a system that wasn't designed to combat the issue at the scale they are operating at. I'm interested in what sort of solution will eventually be effective at stopping this. Hopefully for Amazon it won't be inspect…
There was a story about a guy who self publishes his own book and on Amazon there are cheap fakes with identical title, cover and etc... Amazon just doesn't do anything.
Hey, this title could be easily misconstrued given the prominent US politician. Assuming this is an innocent accident and only pointing it out because I’d misinterpreted it to be a conflict of interest expose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They know what they’re doing and don’t care because it’s working.
I think the viewpoint that Amazon doesn't care is too cynical. They probably do care but are stuck with the issue of looking at effective counter measures that are too expensive to consider. What is more realistic is that they are just stumped at this point.
In this case I expect their response will be just enough to avoid any truly damaging outcomes while not spending any resources beyond that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They know what they’re doing and don’t care because it’s working.
I think the viewpoint that Amazon doesn't care is too cynical. They probably do care but are stuck with the issue of looking at effective counter measures that are too expensive to consider. What is more realistic is that they are just stumped at this point.
There was a point in time not too long ago where amazon refused to sell Google Chromecasts, but they would sell knock-offs including those that were marked with a "G" in an apparent trademark violation.
Some retailers are selling repackaged medical equipment -- in this case cpap masks -- in ziploc bags. There may or may not be anything wrong with the mask itself, but the real bags are high quality packaging and factory sealed -- not a ziploc bag with a sticker on it.
I wonder if this is an oversight by Amazon on failing to scale its anti-counterfeit measures. Maybe they didn't appropriately evaluate how large the issue would become and they're stuck with trying to amend a system that wasn't designed to combat the issue at the scale they are operating at. I'm interested in what sort of solution will eventually be effective at stopping this. Hopefully for Amazon it won't be inspect…
I don't think they care. There was a story about a guy who self publishes his own book and on Amazon there are cheap fakes with identical title, cover and etc... Amazon just doesn't do anything.
But more so, all these transactions are documented, not cash in hand style transactions.
So, will we see some company who sells a branded product taking Amazon seems not like a case of if, but when and what angle. Meanwhile, such issues in the digital era get dealt with by politicians grumberling fashionably and such digital domains offing some token informal(non legally binding law) compromise that enables politicians to be seen to be doing there job but the digital companies doing it for them in a way that suits them far better than is appreciated.
But thanks to the digital age, all those sales of fake/copy products will be logged and are just a growing liability that Amazon is not completely immune from.
Hey, this title could be easily misconstrued given the prominent US politician. Assuming this is an innocent accident and only pointing it out because I’d misinterpreted it to be a conflict of interest expose.