> In fact, Amazon's margins decrease when it pushes prices down. Exactly. That’s why this guy sounds butt-hurt and far from having any meaningful antitrust evi

> In fact, Amazon's margins decrease when it pushes prices down. Exactly. That’s why this guy sounds butt-hurt and far from having any meaningful antitrust evidence. Retailers always have the leverage that comes from rightfully owning their distribution channel. Amazon, Walmart or the little store in the corner are all in the business of sourcing products and they can set all the conditions on how those things are sold on their side. Pushing prices down isn’t hurting the final customer, so if PopSockets feels that their product is not profitable due to Amazon pricing policies they should not sell there. This guy is basically saying that he doesn’t like how Amazon treats his business, and to be fair Amazon is probably treating them poorly. But besides that, there’s little to argue. As Amazon said in their statement he is free to stop selling with Amazon and go somewhere else. His customers can buy the product through other channels. You only have an antitrust case when you can prove that customers are being hurt. Pushing prices down and sourcing similar products is not evidence for monopolistic behavior, at least not until you can prove that they are doing this to put your business out and then raise prices on that type of product you produce. Problem is that this product is so useless and easy to copy that even if you can prove that somehow, it’s hard to imagine a way to claim in the bigger picture that Amazon is building a monopoly on “pop-sockets”. That’s just as ridiculous as it sounds. ...and definitely not defending Amazon here, but this is a very weak angle/evidence to prove that Amazon is engaging in shady anticompetitive practices. There's probably a stronger case somewhere else.