3 ms·

Is it at all legal for Amazon to selectively disable it's services for no real reason? I'm surprised that it looks like this.

by alexro 14y ago

gluejar 14y ago
why would it be illegal?
- Jtsummers 14y ago
  The implication being that they're abusing their market position as a payment service to prevent potential competition against their other business (book sales). Not being able to get to unglue.it here at work I don't know the specifics. However, since Amazon isn't (as far as I know) in anyway a monopoly or majority concern in the payment processing business then this could be abusive, but is likely not illegal.
  - gluejar 14y ago
    Seems unlikely.
    - Jtsummers 14y ago
      I agree, I've just heard enough people making arguments about situations like this that I thought I'd share the reasoning they offer, and then followed it up with why it's flawed. For instance, I have a coworker who keeps insisting that Apple should have been hit with an anti-trust suit like MS since they only allowed the Safari browser on iOS (for a time). He was dead serious (for some reason he truly hates Apple and wants to see the corporation fail, still owns an iPhone though). It was based off a flawed understanding of the laws and the markets the laws apply to. A lot of people seem to jump to the legality of the actions of the group in charge of a particular platform without considering whether that platform is one of a larger marketplace.
Steuard 14y ago
I really like the Unglue.it model, so I'm upset by this decision, too, but I suspect there aren't any legal grounds for complaining about it. I fully expect that Amazon's contract language gives them plenty of latitude to refuse services at their discretion. Even if there were some non-discrimination law that touched on this sort of situation, it's not inconceivable that they view Unglue.it as competing in their core market. I can't imagine many cases where a company would be legally obligated to provide services to support a competitor. (Sure, local phone utility companies are in that situation, but that's for solid historical reasons related to government backing of their monopoly on infrastructure.) [I'm obviously not a lawyer or an expert on these things, so corrections are welcome.]
milesskorpen 14y ago
If Visa and other card processors much higher up the value chain can do it (e.g., Wikileaks), Amazon certainly has the same option.

Is it at all legal for Amazon to selectively disable it's services for no real reason? I'm surprised that it looks like this.

by alexro 14y ago

Is it at all legal for Amazon to selectively disable it's services for no real reason? I'm surprised that it looks like this.

gluejar 14y ago

why would it be illegal?

Jtsummers 14y ago
The implication being that they're abusing their market position as a payment service to prevent potential competition against their other business (book sales). Not being able to get to unglue.it here at work I don't know the specifics. However, since Amazon isn't (as far as I know) in anyway a monopoly or majority concern in the payment processing business then this could be abusive, but is likely not illegal.
- gluejar 14y ago
  Seems unlikely.
  - Jtsummers 14y ago
    I agree, I've just heard enough people making arguments about situations like this that I thought I'd share the reasoning they offer, and then followed it up with why it's flawed. For instance, I have a coworker who keeps insisting that Apple should have been hit with an anti-trust suit like MS since they only allowed the Safari browser on iOS (for a time). He was dead serious (for some reason he truly hates Apple and wants to see the corporation fail, still owns an iPhone though). It was based off a flawed understanding of the laws and the markets the laws apply to. A lot of people seem to jump to the legality of the actions of the group in charge of a particular platform without considering whether that platform is one of a larger marketplace.

Steuard 14y ago

I really like the Unglue.it model, so I'm upset by this decision, too, but I suspect there aren't any legal grounds for complaining about it. I fully expect that Amazon's contract language gives them plenty of latitude to refuse services at their discretion. Even if there were some non-discrimination law that touched on this sort of situation, it's not inconceivable that they view Unglue.it as competing in their core market. I can't imagine many cases where a company would be legally obligated to provide services to support a competitor. (Sure, local phone utility companies are in that situation, but that's for solid historical reasons related to government backing of their monopoly on infrastructure.) [I'm obviously not a lawyer or an expert on these things, so corrections are welcome.]

milesskorpen 14y ago

If Visa and other card processors much higher up the value chain can do it (e.g., Wikileaks), Amazon certainly has the same option.