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

Amazon vs. Perplexity – U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

law.justia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–209 of 209 posts

Re: Amazon vs. Perplexity – U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

#201

Post by pests »

hatthew wrote: post #130
A1kmm wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe a better analogy: They can ban you from going through their drive through on a bicycle, but can they sue bicycle manufacturers because bike riders are going through their drive through? In this analogy, it seems the originating court said yes, they can sue the bicycle manufacturer (in the analogy), but on appeal the answer was no, they cannot. That seems like the appeals court got it right to me.

I'm not familiar with the case, but to me it sounds like the bicycle manufacturer is encouraging people to use bikes in the drive through, maybe even providing specific tools explicitly for that purpose?

Even if they were, is it illegal to sell something that might violate another companies TOS?

There is entire categories of products whose entire intent is to circumvent some other products limitation or rules.

Re: Amazon vs. Perplexity – U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

#202

Post by idle_zealot »

bitpush wrote: post #72
hightrix wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Access, yes. Display the content delivered from amazon.com, no absolutely not.

I'm trying to make sense of this and the best analogy I can find is using an example of physical products. 1. I can walk into Apple Store and buy Apple device (this is similar to me opening the browser and accessing amazon.com 2. If I'm busy, I can hire a person to go stand in line and buy the device (me asking Comet to shop on my behalf) The core question is does Apple (Amazon in this case) can block the hired help…

> If I'm busy, I can hire a person to go stand in line and buy the device (me asking Comet to shop on my behalf)

I feel like this is already ceding too much ground. A better analogy is "can I hire someone to read this product catalog I got in the mail for me." My browser isn't Amazon's store, it's a device for reading catalogs they send me.

Re: Amazon vs. Perplexity – U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

#203

Post by dcrazy »

shimman wrote: post #183
dcrazy wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon is a party to interactions with their website. That gives them standing to sue over those interactions. Whether they can sue Perplexity specifically is what was being debated in these motions.

Nah, once you have the bits on your device you should be free to do with them whatever you want. Amazon doesn't get to dictate how you consume what they give out for free.

What you think you should be able to do with the data you get back from contacting Amazon’s servers doesn’t impact whether Amazon has standing to sue you over how and why you contacted their servers.

Re: Amazon vs. Perplexity – U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

#204

Post by upupupandaway »

theturtletalks wrote: post #128
hmokiguess wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon is not just the frontend. There is a whole supply chain side of it with warehouses, distributors, couriers, etc. Inventory and stock readiness, shipping, and other things will continue to be bottlenecks for consumerism at scale.

3PLs and warehouse distribution channels have gotten better and are cheaper than using FBA shipping outside Amazon. Did you know the biggest sellers on Amazon normally have their own website and in fact, orders from Amazon flow directly into their OMS (order management system). Amazon is simply a sales channel. Also Amazon has a stronghold in western countries but much less so in gulf states, South Asia, and Africa.

As someone who ran part of their fulfillment network, I say you are completely off the mark here. Their network is the best in the world bar none. In addition to marketplace, 1P, and FBA, there are many other cooperation models where massive companies that appear to have their own distribution centers actually use Amazon's network (even co-located for some warehouses/sort centers).

There is no 3PL or other warehouse companies (many of which use Amazon's anyway) there are better than Amazon. Maybe Walmart gets close. For the case you mentioned (OMS integrations), this absolutely does NOT mean that they handle shipping. The aggressive majority of those vendors just uses FBA anyway.

If you're building your startup on the principle that Amazon is "a sales channel only", then I wish you well but you will fail.

Re: Amazon vs. Perplexity – U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

#205

Post by upupupandaway »

mirthflat83 wrote: post #180
jatora wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The new era of ads is this comment right here. shudders

I legitimately thought the parent comment was satire

Reminds me of a message I got on LinkedIn on Memorial Day weekend.

"Memorial Day is an opportunity to slow down and think about the service of those who gave their lives for America and for our freedom.

We offer you freedom from the hassle of hiring your own internal engineering team by providing you with vetted, experience software engineers in the same time zone as your company."

Re: Amazon vs. Perplexity – U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

#206

Post by jojobas »

eigencoder wrote: post #56
jubilanti wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not using "standing" correctly, you're using it more to argue about the merits of the case. Standing is about filtering out frivolous lawsuits. One has "standing" to file a lawsuit when there is reason to believe these three questions could be answered in the affirmative, if a trial were to take place: Was the plaintiff harmed? Did the defendant cause that harm? Can the court rectify that harm? It's not about…

Yeah, in this case I believe I do mean the merits rather than "standing".

"Leg to stand on"

Re: Amazon vs. Perplexity – U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

#207

Post by nvme0n1p1 »

cobbzilla wrote: post #178
ndriscoll wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm saying the client can take the action, but the user never sees the client because they interact with it through e.g. their AdBuster box, a glorified PiKVM that interacts with client, OCRs it, and produces simple filtered HTML for the user. As long as you can attach a display and USB inputs, your "monitor" or "braille device" can go straight to a vision model, which can then send inputs from your "keyboard". There…

Whose DD API key is being used? This is not an anonymous access scenario. The DD API client is tied to some company, the behavior is detectable, they are banned. Or do you give out KVMs to all your customers and say “place your DD orders with us this way”?

> the behavior is detectable, they are banned

How will DD detect that I put a sticky note on my screen at the spot where ads are displayed?

How will DD detect if a robot is operating the touchscreen or a human finger?

Re: Amazon vs. Perplexity – U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

#208

Post by [deleted] »

jubilanti wrote: post #37
LPisGood wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding of the case law on this subject is that courts are extremely wary of letting terms of service violations rise to the level of federal crime. It essentially endows anyone with a domain name into an authority which can create federal law on demand.

FYI: https://enwp.org/Van_Buren_v._United_States https://enwp.org/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn

[deleted]
Post reply on HN