Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Federal Court OKs Amazon's System of Suggesting Alternative Products

Posted by timothy on from the if-you-don't-like-that-you'll-really-hate-this dept.

concealment writes "Many of us have had the experience of going to Amazon to buy one thing but checking out with a huge shopping cart of items that we didn't initially seek—or even know were available. Amazon's merchandising often benefits Amazon's customers, but trademark owners who lose sales to their competition due to it aren't as thrilled. Fortunately for Amazon, a California federal court recently upheld Amazon's merchandising practices in its internal search results."

6 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. cry some more by X0563511 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, cry some more.

    Or you could actually put effort into selling a better product for competitive pricing and stop bitching that people don't choose you when they get a view of better alternatives.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    1. Re:cry some more by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If this was a physical store, the thought would've never crossed their minds to sue for having similar products on sale in the same section of the store... they might be like Coke and Pepsi and sign exclusivity agreements but no law suit. Is this just a function of it being online and everyone trying to dictate their own model for how things should be done?

    2. Re:cry some more by interval1066 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, its the equivalent of "Oh, bye the way, in addition to Coke we have Pepsi, Sprite, these marvelous ice chests, cool glasses with the Coke logo on them..."

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  2. Why legislation? by CaptainNerdCave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I really don't understand why the legal system needs to be bothered to deal with this. My tax dollars have better things to do than get wasted deciding "It's acceptable to display multiple products in one place."

    If the argument is from $company that "They searched for my expensive product, but bought a cheaper alternative instead! We demand that they not see other items!", then it seems obvious that these people have never shopped anywhere, ever. Generic acetaminophen is sitting right next to Tylenol, but how often does Tylenol lobby to make that illegal?

    If anything, the more expensive product company marketing goons need to realize that places like Amazon are doing them a favor because the opposite happens too. A cheap coffee-maker has two stars, but something 50% more expensive has 4.5, so people look to see why it's reviewed so much higher. I know I do.

    Peer-reviews have helped many people avoid buying garbage unwittingly, and steered many people to something better suited to their needs.

  3. Re:Brick and Mortar by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The court noted that in its decision, in a nicely clueful bit of reasoning. They pointed out that it's much like, when asking for Coke at a restaurant that doesn't carry Coke, it is not infringing for the restaurant to offer you Pepsi-Cola or RC Cola as (correctly labeled) alternatives.

    --
    10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
  4. Re:Truly sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    True. The court case is even worse.

    This is like Smuckers refusing to sell jam to a brick and mortar, and then suing the brick and mortar because when customers go looking for Smuckers they instead find a shelf full of other jams.