Toys 'R' Us Wins Suit Against Amazon

theodp writes "Having prevailed in its bitter lawsuit against Amazon.com, Toys 'R' Us will create a new and independent Web site. A NJ judge found Amazon breached its agreement and ordered the two companies to sever their partnership Thursday. In a 131-page opinion, the judge termed Amazon's attempts to throw out e-mail evidence on the grounds that Internet communications lack reliability 'incomprehensible' and took a dim view of the testimony of some Amazon execs, including CEO Jeff Bezos' candor and 'rather childlike' explanations."

Comments

contract

[phantomfive]

I didn't realize that Toys R' Us was in a lawsuit with Amazon. Seems back in 2000 they agreed to work together in the online world with a 10 year contract. Toys 'R Us thought they had an exclusive contract with Amazon, but when Amazon started selling things from other retailers Toys 'R Us wanted out (understandably). Amazon tried to force them to stay.

Rather lousy thing to do if you ask me. Good business is about building mutually beneficial partnerships, not about beating up your neighbor and taking his lunch money. If I owned a company I would be wary of doing business with Amazon.

Re:contract

[Anonymous Coward]

But as a customer, you should love them for it because it creates a competitive marketplace and allows you to buy the product from the best seller.

Amazon allows other companies to compete with their own products also.

If you ask me, Toys 'R us just doesn't understand the long term strategy of trying to create sales lift by aiming to provide the customer with the best price. The idea is that in the long run, the sales lift created by the competitive marketplace will out pace the loss from having competitors on the web site. I guess Toys 'R Us just doesn't have the wal mart mentality.

Re:contract

[CastrTroy]

I don't think most parents would bring their kid into a TRU because it would just be too much trouble. Unless they are actually planning on buying something, I don't think most people go in. I know that kids should be able to understand no means no, and just because you're in a toystore, doesn't mean that you're getting a toy. But that isn't in general the way things work for most kids. Parents bring their kids to walmart because they have lots of different things to buy. TRU is kind of a specialty shop that you don't go to unless you specificly need an item and they have the best price. Which isn't very often.

Re: credability of internet evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

The article is horrible (it ends in the middle of a sentence!), and it is impossible to say exactly what Amazon was claiming regarding the emails. It talks about Amazon claiming hearsay, and then talks about the judge saying things about the realiability of internet communications. Either the author of the article or the judge seems to be using a non sequitur. It just makes no sense.

And she repeatedly complained about the ambiguous use of language in memorandums, contract agreements and discussions, concluding that "the language as drafted whether intentional or inartful gave Amazon the words to play the game their way."

If the language was so ambiguous, wouldn't it also give Toys 'R' Us the "words to play the game their way (emphasis added)"? And what does she mean about memorandums and discussions. I didn't know memorandums and discussion had to be written and spoken in accurate legalese. If the article is accurate (and I'm interpreting it correctly) it sounds like the judge is siding with Toys'R'Us just because they entered into a bad contract!

Again, the article doesn't tell us much, but it looks like Amazon has good grounds for an appeal. The judge can't just throw out a contract because its a bad deal for one side. And the judge can't allow hearsay, which it sounds like she's done. I mean, it sounds on the one hand that she is chastising Amazon for wanting to (rightly) exclude hearsay, and on the other hand is chastising them for the quality of that hearsay!

Amazing!

[seebs]

So, a company which spams, files frivolous patents, files lawsuits based on an allegedly "purely defensive" patent portfolio, pretends to oppose the current patent system while systematically abusing it, and is consistently "the worst neighbor we can get away with being" as a matter of policy...

Failed to act in a forthright manner?

Amazon? DECEITFUL? HOW CAN THIS BE?!?

Oh, that's right. They've been like this since day 1.

What amazes me is the number of apologists who will do anything but admit the plain reality. Amazon sucks. We would be better off with pretty much any other company replacing them.

Re:Amazing!

[squiggleslash]

spams

Not come across that myself. Never received an email from them to any email address other than the one I provided to them. The emails I do receive are in accordance with my preferences.

files frivolous patents

That's subjective

files lawsuits based on an allegedly "purely defensive" patent portfolio

So far as I'm aware, they haven't sued anyone since the One Click fiasco five or six years ago. At that time, their patent portfolio wasn't been sold as "defensive". I note the FSF's boycott of them ended in 2002 as they'd stopped suing people. It is probably true that their current patent portfolio is defensive.

pretends to oppose the current patent system while systematically abusing it

Ok, I think you're repeating yourself, and you're also guilty of over-simplifying. They did fund a stillborn attempt to get evidence overturning process and software patents. It was nice that they did it, but it demonstrated in the end that the situation wasn't as clear as any of us would like. Amazon responded, I think rightly, by building their patent portfolio, as you need to if you want to defend yourselves against patent claims by other groups in the same climate. The question is, if Bezos et al had had evidence handed to them on a plate that "frivilous" patents can easily be over turned, would they be worried enough to build themselves a defensive portfolio?

is consistently "the worst neighbor we can get away with being" as a matter of policy

I've not come across any examples of bad neighbourliness, at least, not since the One Click fiasco.

Now, on the other hand, you have to consider:

1. Amazon is one of the most innovative and inventive companies on the 'net. From popularizing online commerce in the first place by creating one of the first safe, solid, buying portals, they've introduced a large range of concepts that have been copied and relied upon from everyone from Yahoo Shopping to Apple iTunes Music Store. My favorite feature is the integrated reviews system, largely uncensored (Yes, you can find an example of someone who had their reviews removed, but a quick look at the majority of products will find bad, scathing, and even insulting, reviews in abundance) and an excellent system to evaluate products.

2. Amazon has one of the largest catalogues around, as a matter of policy. If they've found it exists, and it fits their categories, it has an ASIN. Even if they can't sell it, marketplace sellers can be very specific about the item they're selling, meaning buyers can be fairly confident about what they're getting.

3. Amazon has excellent customer support. I've never had an issue unresolved by them. I rarely have problems in the first place. I've never met anyone who had a problem with them. They also act as an "honest broker" between third party sellers and buyers, and a reliable one, which is more than can be said for Paypal.

These three facts between them are why, in the absense of current bad behaviour I do buy from Amazon. Of all online retailers, they're the most useful. Their inventive and innovative streaks do deserve support. And I can trust them.

What amazes me is the number of apologists who will do anything but admit the plain reality. Amazon sucks. We would be better off with pretty much any other company replacing them.

*Any* company? Heh. Good luck buying "War and Peace" from Staples.com...

Anyway, that's simply nonsense. They have no major competitors on the "We sell everything front", with the possible exception of eBay/Paypal. There are the aggregators/portals like Yahoo Shopping, but there the consistancy and reliability of the information is awful. Then you have other companies that specialize in a particular field but don't necessarily have that wide a range.

Rig

Re:Amazing!

[seebs]

Example 1: Patent lawsuits. Amazon filed a business-method patent. Amazon sued B&N over it. Business-method patents are plainly evil. Furthermore, Jeff Bezos very publically backed down... Sign of reform? Not hardly. Amazon is still filing business-method patents, still requesting secrecy so people can't present prior art, and so on. No actual change; just schmooze.
Example 2: Spam. Amazon doesn't spam everyone, but then, most people will never meet anyone who knew anyone Ted Bundy killed. Amazon has in the past spammed. They have made people jump through hoops to get off lists they never asked to be on.
Example 3: Everything from purchase circles on; Amazon doesn't do the right thing unless threatened or forced. Amazon starts with a default assumption that they have no obligation to behave in an ethical manner. Scratch that; Amazon has never shown any awareness of any kind of "ethical" concern at all. All they care about is public outcry.

Conclusion: Amazon may, if actively policed and watched and given clear threats of retaliation for misbehavior, behave in a tolerable manner. They have never shown any interest in doing the right thing without being threatened. Even when they publically back down from a bad thing (say, Bezos talking about the need for patent reform), they may continue doing it if they can get away with it.

To this day, Amazon has never acknowledged that there is a reason to prefer opt-in mailings. To this day, Amazon has not apologized for their frivolous lawsuit. Amazon has not stopped filing business-method patents, or declaring secrecy on their patents, despite allegedly realizing the problems with these practices.

Amazon employees have posted to Usenet from Amazon IP space to defend Amazon's practices, while not admitting to being employees. When busted, the guy disappeared without comment. Did Amazon do anything about this? No. We reasonably infer that it isn't a violation of company policy for staff to pretend to be customers instead of staff and give "unbiased" defenses while on the payroll.

In short, why would you ever trust them?

Yes, it saves money. Slave labor saves money, too. Amazon cheats other people, abuses the patent system, and passes the savings on to you.

In other news: Shopping online unreliable!

[PC-PHIX]

Amazon's attempts to throw out e-mail evidence on the grounds that Internet communications lack reliability

Wah?

I hope I am not the only person that thinks this is a total contradiction!

Yes, shop online with us... Sure, purchase goods using the Internet... Absolutely, we can email you a new password/invoice/receipt number... Use email to communicate for business purposes - you must be F&*king crazy!!!!

If I tried to explain why, in this day and age, when running an entire business empire online, I considered "Internet communications" unreliable, I think my efforts would end up "incomprehensible" too!

My fellow American

[Josh teh Jenius]

If I may be deadly serious for a moment: my pals and I have sent each other "spoof" emails as practical jokes for years now.

Am I the only one who finds it extremely dangerous that email is accepted as "evidence" in 2006 by people who can't begin to understand "this tech stuff"?

Yikes.

Re:spoof?

[rkcallaghan]

Can't tell from the article if it applies, but I can sure think of a few reasons why e-mail is not the best evidence.

I was thinking about this, and you know, Google gets a lot of flak for the storage-archive-nothings-ever-deleted thing; but could this be at least one positive side for most people?

I mean, really, it would be pretty preposterous to suggest that most people are capable of hacking and forging email on Google's servers, complete with Google's logs and metadata on the message transmission. Compared to a company's (or a person's) own private servers, it seems having a reputable 3rd party involved would add legitimacy in this case.

Thoughts?

~Rebecca

Editor needed at MSNBC.COM

[digitaldc]

According to the ruling in the case, Amazon.com has 14 fulfillment centers operating 24 hours a day except for Christmas and New

Reuters contributed to the story.

New Year's? New locations? New York? New London?
Someone needs to RTA before they publish it.

Anyone been to bricks & mortar Toys R Us latel

[MrNougat]

I have. Their stores pretty much suck. The only reason they still exist is momentum and because WalMart beat down all the competition. I think their own in-house internet presence may just be the end of them.