3 ms·

Both are. Legally I believe Amazon is allowed to discriminate against competitors products as long as they're not a monopoly or using their dominant position in

Both are. Legally I believe Amazon is allowed to discriminate against competitors products as long as they're not a monopoly or using their dominant position in the "online-store market" to squash competition in the "online video-market". I'm not sure of the exact definition, but in the EU at least Google has gotten in hot-waters before over something similar. Generally speaking, you are being anticompetitive if you're strong-arming the competition out of the market as opposed to challenging them based on the relative quality of your product. But at what point exactly it becomes illegal I wouldn't know.

jrochkind1 11y ago
To you and me though, it does kind of sound like Amazon is using their dominant position in the "online-store market" to squash competition in the "online video market", doesn't it? To me, it sounds like that's exactly what they are doing. Whether it seems that way to the FTC or to a lawyer who understands the relevant laws is another question. You would _think_ Amazon would run this by their lawyers first.... and do it only if their lawyers thought they could get away with it? I dunno.
- Coding_Cat 11y ago
  Yeah, as I said I don't know the exact border of legality. I wouldn't be surprised if: a) This would only be an issue in the EU, and Amazon is sticking to blocking on .com. b) The wording of the law is intentionally vague ("Such that a reasonable person would expect..." etc.) and Amazon believes to either be in the clear or that at least the risk/reward is good enough. To name another example of "kinda maybe I'm not sure"-legality. Supermarket home-brands. I remember a few years a go here in the Netherlands there was a price war going on between supermarkets and the producers were caught in the middle, and as a result of ever-dropping prices they did start to complain that it was anti-competitive to allow supermarkets to also be producers as in an ideal market it would be impossible for the producers to offer the same price-point for the same products. I don't believe it went anywhere, but I do feel they kinda have a point. Although I wouldn't be for banning supermarkets from having their own brand (not that it would really be possible anyway, given modern corporate structures).

jrochkind1 11y ago

To you and me though, it does kind of sound like Amazon is using their dominant position in the "online-store market" to squash competition in the "online video market", doesn't it? To me, it sounds like that's exactly what they are doing. Whether it seems that way to the FTC or to a lawyer who understands the relevant laws is another question. You would _think_ Amazon would run this by their lawyers first.... and do it only if their lawyers thought they could get away with it? I dunno.

Coding_Cat 11y ago
Yeah, as I said I don't know the exact border of legality. I wouldn't be surprised if: a) This would only be an issue in the EU, and Amazon is sticking to blocking on .com. b) The wording of the law is intentionally vague ("Such that a reasonable person would expect..." etc.) and Amazon believes to either be in the clear or that at least the risk/reward is good enough. To name another example of "kinda maybe I'm not sure"-legality. Supermarket home-brands. I remember a few years a go here in the Netherlands there was a price war going on between supermarkets and the producers were caught in the middle, and as a result of ever-dropping prices they did start to complain that it was anti-competitive to allow supermarkets to also be producers as in an ideal market it would be impossible for the producers to offer the same price-point for the same products. I don't believe it went anywhere, but I do feel they kinda have a point. Although I wouldn't be for banning supermarkets from having their own brand (not that it would really be possible anyway, given modern corporate structures).