FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power • Hacker News Board

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#161

Post by abduhl » Tue, Sep 26, 2023, 5:40 PM UTC

cratermoon wrote: post #96

whatever1 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not if you cannot prove that the price that the customer pays is now higher. Apple for example copies apps and makes them available as default in iOS. Companies go bankrupt because of it, but it is not monopolistic. Of course all these are because of the strict legal definitions we have. In spirit I agree with you.

> It is not if you cannot prove that the price that the customer pays is now higher. That's according to a peculiar interpretation of anti-trust law. “Due to a change in legal thinking and practice in the 1970s and 1980s, antitrust law now assesses competition largely with an eye to the short-term interests of consumers, not producers or the health of the market as a whole; antitrust doctrine views low consumer price…

It’s strange to call the most prominent view (and the one applied by courts currently) a “peculiar” interpretation. Lina Khan is the one with the “peculiar” view right now. The consumer interest test is preferred because, among other reasons, it is quantitative. Quantitative tests are seen as less able to be abused because some judge has a particular view/vibe. Additionally, the consumer harm test focuses on the consumer which is the ultimate class of people antitrust laws seek to protect. Antitrust laws don’t exist to protect markets, they exist to protect citizens.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#162

Post by jstarfish » Tue, Sep 26, 2023, 5:41 PM UTC

takinola wrote: post #35

zht wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've found that many people will spend a lot of time and energy defending large companies (and often their CEOs) against perceived bullying. Amazon, Tesla, Elon, Meta, etc etc. I don't really understand it.

Perhaps they have a different opinion than you do on the issue? I don't have a POV on this particular case but it seems reasonable to assume that there are other (reasonable) people that have different values and judgements than you do. Just because these companies and CEOs have a lot of resources should not automatically kick in the "David v Goliath" instinct that most people have

> Just because these companies and CEOs have a lot of resources should not automatically kick in the "David v Goliath" instinct that most people have

David vs. Goliath was a story about overcoming subjugation and oppression. A lot of people have been very much put-upon by the metaphorical Goliath here in a number of ways. There are piss bottles available as evidence.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#163

Post by crznp » Tue, Sep 26, 2023, 5:42 PM UTC

likpok wrote: post #109

catiopatio wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> post-iOS change What is the iOS change you’re referring to?

ATT, where apple hobbled other ad networks running on iOS. It used to be that DTC companies could use the fine-grained targeting offered by FB and Google to reach consumers without needing to go through a major distributor. Since the targeting is much less effective it's more expensive (potentially uneconomically so) to reach people. As a result, sellers are forced back to Amazon.

Lots of TLAs:

ATT: Apple's App Tracking Transparency, not AT&T

FBA: Fulfillment by Amazon, not related to FB

DTC: Direct To Consumer, not Depository Trust Company

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#164

Post by binarymax » Tue, Sep 26, 2023, 5:43 PM UTC

lvl102 wrote: post #125

sudobash1 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> on the backs of Amazon. They were using the Amazon platform for what it was intended for, and Amazon made more millions off of them. It was supposed to be a mutually beneficial relationship.

And I am saying what Amazon is doing is not anticompetitive at all. These “companies” that sell on Amazon are basically glorified trade companies that arbitrage low cost Chinese manufacturing. I don’t feel bad for them at all. If they are hurting so bad, go sell the goods on Shopify store or Walmart/Target. Oh, what’s that? They charge more than Amazon? Interesting…

You're over generalizing. There are plenty of sellers that took the time to develop their own products and sell them, only to be copied and undercut by Amazon.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#165

Post by autoexec » Tue, Sep 26, 2023, 5:44 PM UTC

waynesonfire wrote: post #158

autoexec wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grocery stores sell generic foods, but they put them on the same shelf as the name brand stuff. They don't hide the original products in a darkened corner of the back room where no customer can see them. They don't shove their generic into your hand every time you reach for a name brand. Amazon can hide the real products from search, or push it to the bottom of results, while putting their own products at the top of…

there is limited shelf space. they take the original product off the shelf.

I have never once seen a store that removed the major name brands from the shelves and only offered their own generic brand.

You might argue that having generics on the shelves at all means that new small brands have to pay more for placement, but that's not the same thing as stealing product ideas and leaving no other option but the generic version of that thing on the shelves.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#166

Post by taeric » Tue, Sep 26, 2023, 5:44 PM UTC

thomastjeffery wrote: post #141

taeric wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, as I never had access to that data, but I would be shocked to find that is not demanded by their agreements with the publishers. Akin to why there is no library that will give you non-DRM items. Is almost certainly part of a strategy by the publishers to bolster other marketplaces they find more favorable.

An agreement is constructed by two parties, not one.

Feels like a non-sequitur? What are you trying to say? My specific point is that I would wager money that Amazon being required to have DRM on their devices is required by publishers for them to be able to have that publisher's offerings. If Amazon drops the DRM, they lose the ability to offer that content.

I'm not as confident that they have the agreement include that they will not offer authors a way to have DRM free content on the platform, but I would not be surprised by it.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#167

Post by gehwartzen » Tue, Sep 26, 2023, 5:45 PM UTC

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: post #157

likpok wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trouble with this argument (which gets made a lot) is that this is basically every large retailer. Walmart has great value, Safeway has safeway select, Target has good and gather. In all of these cases large retailers take well-performing products (i.e. look at their sales data to see what is selling well) and creates mimics. They put the generics right next to the original products, and then charge the original…

I think those great value products are not in fact produced by Walmart. It's the same product from the same company, just lower priced to appeal to price conscious customers.

Thats exactly what those are. I worked for Reynolds Consumer a while back and the same aluminum foil goes into the brand box as well as the private label box.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#168

Post by losteric » Tue, Sep 26, 2023, 5:46 PM UTC

likpok wrote: post #99

_uhtu wrote: post #3

I'm honestly not sure how you could make the case that they aren't maintaining and abusing monopoly power. I mean they literally blatantly copy the designs of other companies who sell on amazon, then put their own results for their own products higher in search results than what they copied off of. It's incredibly blatantly anti-competitive.

The trouble with this argument (which gets made a lot) is that this is basically every large retailer. Walmart has great value, Safeway has safeway select, Target has good and gather. In all of these cases large retailers take well-performing products (i.e. look at their sales data to see what is selling well) and creates mimics. They put the generics right next to the original products, and then charge the original…

> The trouble with this argument (which gets made a lot) is that this is basically every large retailer.

Alternatively: there's no trouble at all, Walmart/Safeway/etc are all clearly engaging in this anti-competitive practice and must be reigned in. Marketplaces need to be regulated as neutral grounds for sellers, the marketplace cannot double-dip and compete against sellers or engage in practices that reduce competition between marketplace businesses.

Generics and knock-offs are fine, it just needs to be done by independent sellers.

Practices like down-ranking sellers for offering better prices elsewhere is just blatantly violating any sense of neutrality, reducing competition among marketplaces and increasing prices for customers.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#169

Post by lvl102 » Tue, Sep 26, 2023, 5:46 PM UTC

dvngnt_ wrote: post #116

lvl102 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to be rude but you made millions on the backs of Amazon. Now you’re complaining that you have competition.

a competitor that owns and governs the platform you have to use is different from another 3rd party that you have to compete with

You don’t have to use them. That’s the point of my argument. No one’s stopping you from selling it using Shopify where you can set up an e-commerce store within a couple of hours.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#170

Post by nonameiguess » Tue, Sep 26, 2023, 5:47 PM UTC

likpok wrote: post #99

_uhtu wrote: post #3

I'm honestly not sure how you could make the case that they aren't maintaining and abusing monopoly power. I mean they literally blatantly copy the designs of other companies who sell on amazon, then put their own results for their own products higher in search results than what they copied off of. It's incredibly blatantly anti-competitive.

The trouble with this argument (which gets made a lot) is that this is basically every large retailer. Walmart has great value, Safeway has safeway select, Target has good and gather. In all of these cases large retailers take well-performing products (i.e. look at their sales data to see what is selling well) and creates mimics. They put the generics right next to the original products, and then charge the original…

Clearly, it isn't illegal to do this kind of thing in general. What's illegal is doing it when you have enough market power to be deemed a monopoly. No physical retailer is anywhere near that. Businesses are allowed to be anticompetitive. That's more or less the entire reason they exist. They're not allowed to create monopolies by being anticompetitive.