3 ms·
The essence seems to be 1. Amazon is suing this person on the basis of contracts which did not forbid this behavior 2. the DOJ is presumably involved because
by losteric 2y ago
The essence seems to be
1. Amazon is suing this person on the basis of contracts which did not forbid this behavior
2. the DOJ is presumably involved because this looks like criminal kickbacks
3. This person is just arguing against (1)
I would guess the DOJ approached Amazon first, and this is part of Amazon trying to cover their ass and avoid deeper scrutiny into the company’s role of enabling and agreeing to alleged kickbacks
- lylejantzi3rd 2y ago> 2. the DOJ is presumably involved because this looks like criminal kickbacks > I would guess the DOJ approached Amazon first No, this is clear retaliation against a competitor. Amazon has contacts at the DOJ (and other government agencies). I bet it was the other way around. Aggressive stupidity in the face of the facts is easier to understand when you realize it's either a favor or a bribe.
- jsnell 2y agoWho is the competitor you have in mind, and what business do you think they are in?
- lylejantzi3rd 2y agoMaybe you should go read the twitter thread and relevant news articles, then come back and ask a better question.
- jsnell 2y agoI have. As far as I can tell, there was no entity competing with Amazon here. The main other corporate entity involved was running a front-running scheme on real-estate transactions. Obviously you couldn't be in good faith talking of the company front-running land purchases and reselling the same land a day later for 20% profit as a "competitor" of Amazon. So, again: who is the competitor you have in mind, and what business do you think they're in?
- lylejantzi3rd 2y agoMaybe you need to look up the word "competitor" in the dictionary. > Obviously you couldn't be Don't do this. It's a clear sign you're not interested in a good faith discussion.