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

201–210 of 236 posts

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#201

Post by ta132141242 »

enragedcacti wrote: post #67
jjtheblunt wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What has she done that didn't fail or get shot down as political overreach? (not being sarcastic...i mean that i may have missed something inadvertently)

The FTC has succeeded at a lot of things that just aren't very interesting to report on. I'd recommend reading through FTC press releases. They generally release a statement whenever a major action is started and resolved. By my count in the past year or so the FTC was involved in at least 12 successful anti-monopoly actions (I counted modified mergers, killed mergers, and divestments). The most consequential merger…

Of the reports linked, didn't look very inconsequential. A light touch maybe.

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#202

Post by mrweasel »

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.

> Legacy media really sucks.

Depends, the tabloids are really good at providing videos or photos from outside or pull them in so you can watch them on their site.

The more "high-end" the media, the less likely their are to provide you with external material, in my experience.

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#203

Post by mrweasel »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #2

Why does this keep happening?

Because it's very profitable?

The issue is that even if you know it's wrong, what are you going to do to. You grow to a certain size, and it then becomes clear that you're inching closer and closer to becoming a monopoly. Do you then stop and inform your shareholders that you unfortunately reached the maximum size for your organisation?

Even if you have no moral issue continuing down your current path, you have very little to fear, because the precedence is that you'll get a relatively mild punishment.

For Amazon, if this was to have any real meaning, the US government could step and an say: Because of the actions of Amazon, the online store, we're no longer able to utilize AWS in good faith. This would force Amazon to split their businesses into two, or lose government contracts, which would both be a real punishment.

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#204

Post by [deleted] »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #10
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...

It's in violation of the sacred law of the attention economy: Never link outside your garden.

[deleted]

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#206

Post by tzs »

scohesc wrote: post #4

I hope they include Amazon's practice of taking popular products on their storefront, making generic "Amazon Basics" versions, and selling them to undercut the popular options. Simultaneously owning a marketplace, approving who can and can't sell products on it, and then putting your own products on it to undercut other sellers is so scummy and muck rake-y. I hope they also include Amazon allowing thousands of Chines…

So let's say they aren't allowed to both own a marketplace and sell their own generic product in that marketplace, and so they have to spin Amazon Basics (AB) off into a separate company that is not treated any differently than any other seller on Amazon the marketplace (AM).

AB can still look at AM listings in a category and note what is popular (just like anyone can do since that is part of the details AM generally includes in listings), and make a generic version (just like anyone can do), and then sell that on AM. AB products are usually pretty good and usually quite reasonably priced and so even if treated exactly the same as everything else in their category are still likely to end up being included in the products that get algorithmically recommended as alternatives.

It's not clear to me how this would improve competition.

As far as your point on Chinese retailers goes, you are arguing that Amazon should allow fewer sellers and those sellers should be more regulated. That may be a good thing but I'm having some difficulty seeing how it is an antitrust thing.

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#207

Post by ApolloFortyNine »

zizee wrote: post #198
ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idk how you fix that without effecting store brands at grocery stores. And I think store brands are pretty mostly a win for the consumer (this is important for any monopoly case).

Do I understand that you like/appreciate grocery store brands, but dislike Amazon's store brand? If so, what is the distinction you see between the two?

>Do I understand that

No I didn't say that.

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#208

Post by EasyMark »

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...

Most of us don’t care about court filing direct links, just that they were filed, to be fair. It’s easy enough to look up on google. I think only the 1% of law nerds who want to read it themselves care if there is a link or not and they already know how to look that stuff up.

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#209

Post by EasyMark »

daemoens wrote: post #38
cynicalpeace wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

I find that most people who criticize legacy media as a monolith are angry at it because it doesn’t meet their own political leanings. I certainly rank legacy media well above 99% of the drivel on social media and podcasts. But I think it is in fashion to only surround yourself by news sources which confirm your (or my) personal bias. I’m certainly not immune to it, but I read multiple sources from right, left, and center and try to pluck out the truth.

Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward

#210

Post by lotsofpulp »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #151
lotsofpulp wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I understand, but picking out random six letter brands on Amazon is not the competition most US customers are looking for.

It’s not feasible for people to go to China, inspect the manufacturing processes, and figure out what is worth what. There is a whole business there of purveying goods, which is what brands like Amazon and Kroger and Kirkland all the way up to LVMH.

With the advent of the internet, that business is no longer restricted to physical stores, so technically, anyone can make a superior product and sell direct to anyone. There were stories of Kmart and Walmart and whoever else bullying vendors because the vendors used to get nowhere without shelf space.

Post reply on HN