US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward • Hacker News Board

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#151

Post by johnnyanmac » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 2:45 AM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #143

johnnyanmac wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consumers like a lot of short term factors that turn against them in the long term. That seems to be the theme of the 21st century. I'd rather these perverse incentives not exist and simply have a more educated consumer base learn to search "Amazon basics X" instead of maximizing conviniece to enable monopolies. We've clearly been shown that we can't handle the latter

I have no interest in becoming more educated about which seller from which factory run has what kind of quality standards. That’s why I use Costco and Target and Walmart and Amazon and Uniqlo and other brands to go out there and do that work. All I want to know is that I’ll be able to return something if it isn’t satisfactory.

And that's how you later get taken advantage of and how Amazon starts to be as bad as Comcast's customer service. But you can't leave because competition is gone.

You don't have to care per se, that's what the government is for. But taking the time and energy to argue against your long term best interests is disappointing.

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#152

Post by stephenr » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 3:03 AM UTC

aspenmayer wrote: post #142

Spivak wrote: post #92

> Amazon’s practice of coercing sellers who want their products to be Prime eligible into using Fulfillment by Amazon, which makes it more difficult and more expensive for rivals to offer increased product selection. How would this even work? It's on Amazon to deliver your stuff in 2 days but they also have to allow 3rd party shipping they have no control over? Are they allowed to require such a seller to fulfill the…

Fulfilled by Amazon is a 3rd party seller program where you send your items for sale to Amazon to be colocated and commingled with other 3rd party FBA seller items with the same SKU and also 1st party Amazon products with that SKU. If that sounds like a horrible idea for all involved, I would agree.

Didn't I read something a few years ago about shitty sellers abusing that system by sending counterfeit versions of products to Amazon, and then legitimate sellers get fucked over when their customers get the counterfeit version (because hey were commingled)?

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#153

Post by Hasu » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 3:09 AM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #138

hughesjj wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> didn't fail or get shot down as political overreach? Progress requires testing the system and seeing where the failure points are . It's significantly better than the relative nothing we've gotten from past admins. Also with the current judicial and congressional makeup it's a wonder anything gets done.

Using public resources to sue companies, force them to pay for expensive defense in court, and then losing when the court decides they did nothing illegal?

Yes, that is how our justice system works. First, the government accuses you of a crime, then they have to prove that you committed it, and you get to defend yourself.

How else could it possibly work? Companies just get to break the law and no one can ever take them to court over it?

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#154

Post by hammock » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 3:10 AM UTC

nnf wrote: post #93

tmtvl wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question: are paywalled news articles better at outlinking and do they have no ads?

The Atlantic seems to have no problem linking to multiple outside sources in seemingly every article I read.

The Atlantic is bankrolled by Steve Jobs wife and historically is more of a “think tank” outlet than a journalistic enterprise

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#155

Post by hammock » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 3:10 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #107

nnf wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Atlantic seems to have no problem linking to multiple outside sources in seemingly every article I read.

The Financial Times is also good about this.

Every FT article is paywalled

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#156

Post by hammock » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 3:11 AM UTC

cynicalpeace wrote: post #30

psunavy03 wrote: post #3

Ruling at the below link, because apparently every US news reporter is allergic to actually providing source docs in court cases . . . https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.32...

I find this to be the case with most primary sources, not just for court cases. A couple days ago, an American WWII bomb exploded at a Japanese airport and the article linked on HN didn't even show or link the video. Legacy media really sucks.

Agree. The easiest way to get the parts of the news you want is to go search on Twitter

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#157

Post by unmole » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 3:11 AM UTC

aspenmayer wrote: post #142

Spivak wrote: post #92

> Amazon’s practice of coercing sellers who want their products to be Prime eligible into using Fulfillment by Amazon, which makes it more difficult and more expensive for rivals to offer increased product selection. How would this even work? It's on Amazon to deliver your stuff in 2 days but they also have to allow 3rd party shipping they have no control over? Are they allowed to require such a seller to fulfill the…

Fulfilled by Amazon is a 3rd party seller program where you send your items for sale to Amazon to be colocated and commingled with other 3rd party FBA seller items with the same SKU and also 1st party Amazon products with that SKU. If that sounds like a horrible idea for all involved, I would agree.

> colocated and commingled with other 3rd party FBA sellers

I don't understand why this misconception is so widespread. Most inventory is tracked using seller specific FNSKU's. Ergo inventory is not comingled.

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#158

Post by aspenmayer » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 3:17 AM UTC

stephenr wrote: post #152

aspenmayer wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fulfilled by Amazon is a 3rd party seller program where you send your items for sale to Amazon to be colocated and commingled with other 3rd party FBA seller items with the same SKU and also 1st party Amazon products with that SKU. If that sounds like a horrible idea for all involved, I would agree.

Didn't I read something a few years ago about shitty sellers abusing that system by sending counterfeit versions of products to Amazon, and then legitimate sellers get fucked over when their customers get the counterfeit version (because hey were commingled)?

I seem to remember something like that. Here are some pros/cons for opting out of commingling which I don’t think that is possible with FBA, but would likely make the products ineligible for Prime I would assume, which is one of the main reasons you would want to use FBA in the first place.

https://www.amazonsellers.attorney/blog/pros-and-cons-of-ama....

> In summary, Amazon's commingling inventory can have serious implications for FBA sellers who are wrongfully accused of selling defective or inauthentic products. While the practice may improve efficiency, it can also make it difficult for sellers to prove their innocence in the event of false accusations. Sellers should be aware of these risks and take steps to protect themselves, such as opting out of commingling inventory or closely monitoring their inventory and customer feedback.

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#159

Post by wnc3141 » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 3:23 AM UTC

psunavy03 wrote: post #3

Ruling at the below link, because apparently every US news reporter is allergic to actually providing source docs in court cases . . . https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.32...

I've noticed two things about most news.

One they never provide sources. Not just their sources but sources behind figures or statements of truth.

Two it's hard to find articles that highlight different points than the leading article on the topic.

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#160

Post by unmole » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 3:28 AM UTC

stephenr wrote: post #152

aspenmayer wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fulfilled by Amazon is a 3rd party seller program where you send your items for sale to Amazon to be colocated and commingled with other 3rd party FBA seller items with the same SKU and also 1st party Amazon products with that SKU. If that sounds like a horrible idea for all involved, I would agree.

Didn't I read something a few years ago about shitty sellers abusing that system by sending counterfeit versions of products to Amazon, and then legitimate sellers get fucked over when their customers get the counterfeit version (because hey were commingled)?

By default inventory is tracked by seller specific FNSKU's and is not comingled. Sellers have to explicitly opt in and jump through additional hoops for their inventory to be tracked using GTIN's whereby their inventory will get comingled with inventory with other sellers who opted for the same.