Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 236 posts

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#161

Post by unmole »

aspenmayer wrote: post #158
stephenr wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The article you linked to reads like AI generated slop. Sellers absolutely can opt out of comingled inventory without losing FBA and Prime.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41773581

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#162

Post by aspenmayer »

unmole wrote: post #157
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.

> 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.

Good to know. Vendors should make every effort to protect their customers and their reputation by using that feature.

https://sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/external...

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#163

Post by unmole »

kmeisthax wrote: post #89
shitlord wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it so common for Chinese sellers on Amazon to have uppercase company names?

Selling on Amazon requires a registered trademark. If you're a random factory in Shenzhen you don't care about branding, you just want to be able to sell your stuff on Amazon, so you just put together random letters in the hope that your registration won't conflict with anything else. You don't want to have to deal with back-and-forth with USPTO, you don't care about having a meaningful, memorable, or interesting nam…

> Selling on Amazon requires a registered trademark

This is not true. A trademark is only required for Amazon's brand registry which gives brand owners control over who is allowed to sell their branded products.

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#164

Post by defrost »

wnc3141 wrote: post #159
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.

Good news reporting is an expensive and dying craft.

These days most articles have one of two sources:

* rewritten from a single prime news reporting source that did the hard yards,

* copied near verbatim from an official Press Release and|or Advertorial Press Material.

The second is the real bane of modern "news" sourcing - eg: straight up disguised advertising- a mega shopping chain pays a network to insert "news" pieces about fighting back against inflation savings that "local" stores are offering up to "stick it to the big guys" and other such template garbage. Perhaps worse; the undeclared "vested interest" news that comes from (say) a mining or energy companies Press Release.

More and more it's hard to find any truly independant journalism (because of cost cutting), and near impossible to find multiple sources and viewpoints.

One answer is for more citizens to become "press aware" and start to distribute their own press kit releases on local issues to spread the side of events that they want aired. That still faces the counter pressure of actual advertisers that spend with networks that would rather see their take get the airtime.

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#165

Post by thurnderbong »

cynicalpeace wrote: post #57
daemoens wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why single out legacy media for this specifically? This isn't something newer media is better at.

Many popular podcasts would show the video, or pull up fact-checking in real time. If that's what you mean by "newer media" I would say it's 10x better. Reuters is legacy media, hence why I mentioned legacy media.

[dead]

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#166

Post by aspenmayer »

unmole wrote: post #161
aspenmayer wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The article you linked to reads like AI generated slop. Sellers absolutely can opt out of comingled inventory without losing FBA and Prime. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41773581

Yeah, it’s hilarious because Google Gemini came up with that link.

To your point, maybe it depends on the product?

https://sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/external...

> By default, we use the manufacturer barcode to track eligible inventory throughout the fulfillment process, unless you change your barcode setting or your product is not eligible. When more than one seller has inventory with the same manufacturer barcode, we may fulfill orders with the inventory that’s closest to the buyer, to facilitate faster delivery.

> If your product isn’t eligible for virtual tracking with the manufacturer barcode, an Amazon barcode is required. You may be able to get an exemption to use the manufacturer barcode by enrolling your ASIN in Amazon Brand Registry. To learn more about virtual tracking and see product eligibility requirements, go to,Using manufacturer barcodes with FBA virtual tracking.

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#167

Post by jessriedel »

Hasu wrote: post #153
jessriedel wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I’m not suggesting the justice system should change. I’m suggesting that civil servants who file and lose a ton of suits should be presumed to be doing net harm. Just as we would for prosecutors in criminal law.

And when it’s politically motivated, it is not just harm in the sense of economic inefficiency, but further is unjust and lowers public trust in institutions.

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#168

Post by safety1st »

ethbr1 wrote: post #29
braiamp wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some weird reason, outlinks are to be avoided, because it's seen as "leaving your site". In a store front, I can see that making sense. In a site to provide information... not so much.

News sites aren't just providing information: they're trading reporting for ad impressions.

It's a stretch to call many many of the stories these sites produce "reporting," I'm thinking in particular about the "Someone posted to Twitter and other people posted angrily to Twitter in response" genre

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#169

Post by yathaid »

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?

[flagged]

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#170

Post by yathaid »

jessriedel wrote: post #167
Hasu wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I’m not suggesting the justice system should change. I’m suggesting that civil servants who file and lose a ton of suits should be presumed to be doing net harm. Just as we would for prosecutors in criminal law. And when it’s politically motivated, it is not just harm in the sense of economic inefficiency, but further is unjust and lowers public trust in institutions.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN