221–230 of 344 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's actually surprisingly cunning. Run a very in depth training program on how "not" to do antitrust. Secretly, it's just a training course in antitrust. Gotta respect the level of commitment to evil.
every large company does it. I've done those courses at Microsoft, Facebook and Google. It's just run of the mill corporate training.
$2.5 million is just over a half hour (33.6 min) of net sales reported on Amazon's 2020 annual report, or put another way, 0.0006% of net sales. I don't understand why the WA state attorney general considers that any sort of punishment. I'm not anti-Amazon and don't even understand the alleged bad behavior. My point is that if governments want any corporation to behave, then the punishment has to be enough to deter f…
The punishment is that they can no longer have this program.
Why are regulators incapable of assessing meaningful punitive damages? 2.5 million is peanuts to Amazon.
> In addition, Amazon will pay $2.25 million to the Attorney General’s Office, which will be used to support the Attorney General’s antitrust enforcement, which does not receive general fund support.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
duh, what do you think training is for?
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It takes a minute, they often have the best price, and vetting a new vendor -- with their own unknown challenges -- is non-trivial.
B&H and Adorama are increasingly my go-tos for anything with microchips. They've both branched out from photography to A/V gear to tech goods generally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds like pretty normal branding. I can get a powered hub for $20 from BUNCHALETTERZ who will disappear without a trace next quarter, or $35 from Anker that I’m pretty sure won’t burn down my apartment.
Yeah, but normally your competitor doesn't get to choose the price of YOUR widget.
That's what Amazon has done. Price fixing and control of the competitors inventory. Damn bastards.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm extra confused, as I'd interpreted "Ships from and sold by Amazon" as "Amazon supplied the goods and will vouch for their validity", whereas "Sold by ISL" would have meant that ISL was on the ultimate hook should the goods prove to be counterfeit. Learn something new (and important) every day.
Sold by Amazon and Fulfilled by Amazon seem to come out of the same box at the warehouse. Unfortunately if you really need genuine products you simply cannot buy things off Amazon anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is standard procedure among any large company in a market. Ideally, antitrust should be proven by actions and not by “see! Your employees say you dominate the market! Take that!”
This. I’m not qualified to prosecute antitrust law; I’m not even a lawyer. How is it that I can throw the company under the bus just by misusing terms of art that I vaguely understand?
You cannot. As you've seen the frequency of antitrust judgements is very low, you're really unlikely to harm your company by saying anything. Don't worry about companies being “thrown under the bus”, their are fine, thank you.
In case others were as confused as i was about this "While they’re often confused, Sold by Amazon and Fulfilled by Amazon are two different things. With SBA, Amazon prices your products and owns any transactions that take place. When an item sells, they pass the proceeds on to you for allowing them to sell your product. With FBA, you price your products and own the transactions. It is a service where Amazon handles t…
"Sold by Amazon" should have only been called that if Amazon bought the items and had it in their warehouse. But their business "creativity" knows no bounds.