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

The Amazon Transparency Program Is a Counterfeiter's Worst Nightmare

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 69 posts

Re: The Amazon Transparency Program Is a Counterfeiter's Worst Nightmare

#31

Post by arkitaip »

fredley wrote: post #14
deelowe wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How practical is it really? Having to print and track individually serialized barcodes for every product you sell, sounds like it can be anything from a nearly 0 cost step to a complete logistical nightmare depending on the manufacturing process.

In order to not be trivially defeatable, it sounds quite hard. You can't, for example, use sequential blocks of ids — far too easy for a counterfeiter to reverse-engineer valid ranges. Which means that you either generate them through some cryptographic signing process - non trivial and the risk of compromised keys, or just generate random guids centrally meaning there's a request/response somewhere in the production…

Countless solutions have tried to solve the problem of counterfeit goods by using some kind of unique identifier but I don't know of any that has seen widespread usage.

The difference is that Amazon is exceptional at tech and has the marketplace to implement and improve their solution over many years. Hopefully Amazon's solution becomes cheap and easy to use for even small brands (but realistically it only needs to be less expensive than the cost of counterfeits to be adopted).

If Amazon's Transparency is REALLY GOOD, they could offer it as a service through AWS. There's an enormous demand for this sort of solution.

Re: The Amazon Transparency Program Is a Counterfeiter's Worst Nightmare

#32

Post by phowat »

wiradikusuma wrote: post #21

Or, why don't a 3rd party provide this, and provide a website isthislegit.com/THERANDOMID (typing or API or QR) that returns red or green? Hey, startup idea!

Cuban cigars have this: http://verificacion.habanos.com/

The biggest issue is with people taking authentic packages, filling with fake cigars and selling it.

Re: The Amazon Transparency Program Is a Counterfeiter's Worst Nightmare

#33

Post by me_me_me »

sdinsn wrote: post #28
dmwallin wrote: post #9

So create a system that encourages abuse, profit from that abuse at the expense of brands, and then charge those companies to use your proprietary tracking system if they want to eliminate it? This is straight out of a racketeering playbook, "It would be a shame if someone counterfeited your products and ruined your brand..." This is Amazon's problem and they should be responsible and accountable for this. This artic…

It's strange how you attack specifically Amazon for this, while every e-commerce platform that allows 3rd party sellers has this problem. Amazon is the only one doing something about it; they should be applauded.

let's not go into whataboutism. Amazon is the biggest player so of course it has to be scrutinized the most.

Re: The Amazon Transparency Program Is a Counterfeiter's Worst Nightmare

#34

Post by amazinzay »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #17
x0x0 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

transparency requires a per-unit sticker with a unique code. Brands do not generally share exact volumes per product or their production rates.

Couldn't they be per-unit shipped/sold on Amazon? Does the brand need to use the same unique code system in, for example, their own brick & mortar location?

From the article: "Brands are required to put Transparency codes on every unit for every SKU that’s enrolled, whether it’s sold on Amazon or through another channel."

Amazon doesn't want companies to use this to prevent third parties from selling their products obtained via other channels through Amazon by claiming they are counterfeit, and so requires all products to contain the code, not just those sold through Amazon.

edit: spelling

Re: The Amazon Transparency Program Is a Counterfeiter's Worst Nightmare

#35

Post by dragontamer »

papreclip wrote: post #20
dmwallin wrote: post #9

So create a system that encourages abuse, profit from that abuse at the expense of brands, and then charge those companies to use your proprietary tracking system if they want to eliminate it? This is straight out of a racketeering playbook, "It would be a shame if someone counterfeited your products and ruined your brand..." This is Amazon's problem and they should be responsible and accountable for this. This artic…

I don't think I fully understand your perspective. Aside from simply offering a marketplace on which people may sell various products, what has Amazon done to encourage abuse?

> what has Amazon done to encourage abuse?

Co-mingling of products at the warehouse. When you buy from Amazon, you don't actually know which "seller" is supplying the goods. They all were comingled at the Warehouse.

Even "Sold by Amazon" and "Fufilled by Amazon" products are comingled. Leading to: https://twitter.com/billpollock/status/1183094406573748225

Amazon, instead of fixing the comingling problem, has decided to charge the legitimate companies (ex: No Starch Press) for anti-counterfeiting defenses. Amazon is destroying No Starch Press's reputation by shipping shoddy low-quality counterfeit books, but its No Starch Press who has to pay the price to fix the problem.

Re: The Amazon Transparency Program Is a Counterfeiter's Worst Nightmare

#36

Post by makomk »

papreclip wrote: post #20
dmwallin wrote: post #9

So create a system that encourages abuse, profit from that abuse at the expense of brands, and then charge those companies to use your proprietary tracking system if they want to eliminate it? This is straight out of a racketeering playbook, "It would be a shame if someone counterfeited your products and ruined your brand..." This is Amazon's problem and they should be responsible and accountable for this. This artic…

I don't think I fully understand your perspective. Aside from simply offering a marketplace on which people may sell various products, what has Amazon done to encourage abuse?

The big difference between Amazon and other marketplaces is that Amazon have done their best to not make it look or act like a marketplace. Like, if you look at a listing on eBay there's a prominent seller information pane telling you which user you're buying from, their feedback history, etc. On Amazon there's just a single unobtrusive "sold by" line which blends into the rest of the page. Not only that, if you or someone else comes back to the same listing a few hours later the product could be coming from a completely different seller - Amazon decides who they want to direct your purchase to based on secret algorithmic factors.

Re: The Amazon Transparency Program Is a Counterfeiter's Worst Nightmare

#37

Post by m-p-3 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #23
danesparza wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the 'R' in RICO stands for 'Racketeer' (which is explicitly a set of repeated criminal acts) and as Amazon hasn't been alleged to have committed any crimes ... I'd say slim to none.

This subthread is entirely about the allegation that Amazon engaged in a repeated pattern of actively promoting wire fraud (a RICO predicate offense) as a commercial enterprise. They haven't previously been charged with a RICO predicate offense, but RICO doesn't require you to be separately charged with a predicate offense (either before or concurrently with RICO charges), only that the required relation to a predica…

So the best move for Amazon would be to do nothing / status quo?

It's not like Amazon does this without any costs on their ends.

Re: The Amazon Transparency Program Is a Counterfeiter's Worst Nightmare

#38

Post by jtuente »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #17
x0x0 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

transparency requires a per-unit sticker with a unique code. Brands do not generally share exact volumes per product or their production rates.

Couldn't they be per-unit shipped/sold on Amazon? Does the brand need to use the same unique code system in, for example, their own brick & mortar location?

> Brands are required to put Transparency codes on every unit for every SKU that’s enrolled, whether it’s sold on Amazon or through another channel.

Nike would have to use a separate SKU for Amazon.

Re: The Amazon Transparency Program Is a Counterfeiter's Worst Nightmare

#39

Post by micmil »

dragonwriter wrote: post #23
danesparza wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the 'R' in RICO stands for 'Racketeer' (which is explicitly a set of repeated criminal acts) and as Amazon hasn't been alleged to have committed any crimes ... I'd say slim to none.

This subthread is entirely about the allegation that Amazon engaged in a repeated pattern of actively promoting wire fraud (a RICO predicate offense) as a commercial enterprise. They haven't previously been charged with a RICO predicate offense, but RICO doesn't require you to be separately charged with a predicate offense (either before or concurrently with RICO charges), only that the required relation to a predica…

The simple fact that Amazon shuts down stores that are found to be fraudulent kills any kind of RICO bullshit you want to spew.

Re: The Amazon Transparency Program Is a Counterfeiter's Worst Nightmare

#40

Post by F00bart »

tidepod12 wrote: post #26
harimau777 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't necessarily know their validity one way or the other, but the points that tend to be made are: - In today's world, Amazon isn't just a marketplace, it is THE marketplace. For many brands, not selling on Amazon isn't a realistic option. - Amazon's marketplace makes it very easy to counterfeit due to co-mingling, the difficulty of holding foreign sellers accountable, and the prevalence of fake reviews. - Amazon…

>Amazon has done little if anything to combat counterfeiting. This article is entirely about Amazon doing something to combat counterfeiting...

Amazon has benefited tremendously from counterfeiting, and has done little to combat it until recently, mostly because the pressure to act has increased and the benefits of stalling have decreased.
Post reply on HN