Federal Court OKs Amazon's System of Suggesting Alternative Products

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Federal Court OKs Amazon's System of Suggesting Alternative Products

Posted by timothy on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @06:00AM 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."

22 of 102 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

cry some more by X0563511 · 2013-02-26 06:06 · 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 · 2013-02-26 06:15 · 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 MozeeToby · 2013-02-26 06:22 · Score: 2
  
  So this is the online equivilent of:
  "I'll have a Pepsi"
  "Sorry, all we have is Coke, is that ok?"
3. Re:cry some more by clarkkent09 · 2013-02-26 07:46 · Score: 2
  
  Kinda but it is slightly different when its online. The issue is use of another company's trademark as a keyword by the Amazon's search engine. So you search for Pepsi and it says all we have is Coke, which means that somewhere in Amazon's database there is a record that Pepsi is a fizzy cola based drink, which is being used to generate search results and this is what the lawsuit objected to. Amazon is still way right to do so of course.
  
  --
  Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
4. Re:cry some more by MDMurphy · 2013-02-26 08:19 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It doesn't have to be a keyword. Amazon has a feature "other people who searched for that bought this". So people could initially have searched for the exclusive watch, not found it and then looked at others. They might even have bought one. Amazon wouldn't have had to do anything specific regarding the "other watch" besides see what people who came looking for it looked at after when they didn't find it.
Truly sad by Ravensfire · 2013-02-26 06:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

Go to a store and you'll generally see competing products next to each other and that's okay. But try to do something similar on-line? Horror! Unfair! Must file lawsuit! It's become our culture but the practice of suing for anything and everything has become utterly ridiculous in the last decade or so.

--
"But we decide which is right, and which is an illusion"
1. Re:Truly sad by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 06:18 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  actually, some companies place restriction on display windows, which in my opinion is very anti-competitive. For example, if a sunglass-maker wants prominent display, they will give you (the store owner) a discount for that premium. Then let that run for a few quarters. Then they may request that all other sunglasses be removed or they will stop the "special" discount - but use other softer terms. If the owner doesn't comply, the manufacturer may go as far as refusing to sell the sunglasses altogether. It's shady, but it's only something that a big brand-name manufacturer can do. If you're a no-name, then the store owner doesn't care.
2. Re:Truly sad by Osiris+Ani · 2013-02-26 06:23 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Go to a store and you'll generally see competing products next to each other and that's okay. But try to do something similar on-line?
  ...writes the person who clearly didn't read the article. I say that because if you did, you'd know that the products in question quite specifically aren't actually available on Amazon.com.
3. Re:Truly sad by wbr1 · 2013-02-26 06:24 · Score: 2
  
  Go to a store and you'll generally see competing products next to each other and that's okay. But try to do something similar on-line? Horror! Unfair! Must file lawsuit! It's become our culture but the practice of suing for anything and everything has become utterly ridiculous in the last decade or so.
  This... products are SUPPOSED to compete in a capitalist system. If you cannot survive competition then you should either improve or get out of the way. When I go to Walmart, competing products are within view at all times. When I go to a grocery store, pepsi is beside coke, Coors is near the Bud. I -like- seeing what my options are.
  
  --
  Silence is a state of mime.
4. Re:Truly sad by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 06:32 · 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.
5. Re:Truly sad by Joehonkie · 2013-02-26 06:45 · Score: 2
  
  Right, so like going to a store and asking for a product that they don't have and being directed to similar products. As mentioned in the case and equally insane.
6. Re:Truly sad by femtobyte · 2013-02-26 10:03 · Score: 2
  
  When I go to Walmart, competing products are within view at all times.
  Or, in many cases, a bunch of products all produced in the same factory for one mega-holdings-conglomerate are displayed in different colored boxes with different brand names and prices to provide the illusion of choice (and make you feel so smart for buying the $7.99 detergent, because that *must* be a great deal when other detergents are selling for up to $18.99). Proctor & Gamble figured out this scam decades ago, and now it's commonplace. You're very unlikely to see *actual* competition from anyone outside the handful of big oligopoly players who play nice with "industry standard" price fixing.
Really? by Bartles · 2013-02-26 06:15 · Score: 2

I'm so glad Amazon got permission from a Federal Court to engage in commerce. How did this case even make it to Federal Court?
1. Re:Really? by Trepidity · 2013-02-26 06:21 · Score: 2
  
  Well, it ended up in court because someone filed a lawsuit, formatted their briefs correctly, and paid a filing fee. It was in federal court because it was a claim under federal trademark law. The plaintiff did not, however, actually win.
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Why legislation? by CaptainNerdCave · 2013-02-26 06:18 · 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.
1. Re:Why legislation? by frinkster · 2013-02-26 06:52 · Score: 2
  
  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...
  There must be some sort of controversy involved. If you file a lawsuit, you must state specifically what the other side is doing wrong, with citations to the relevant laws that prove that such action is wrong. Anything less and the court will sanction you for wasting their time as well as the other side's time.
  In this particular case, the shopper is asking Amazon for products made by company A using words which in that particular context and combination form trademarks and/or copyrights owned by company A. Amazon says that they have no products made by company A but that they went ahead and, on behalf of the shopper, ran a different search using words in that particular context and combination which are still trademarks and/or copyrights of company A. Those results produce listing for products made by companies B, C, and D. There is your controversy. The law says that using the trademarks and/or copyrights belonging to company A to sell competing products is unfair, but is Amazon actually being unfair in this instance? Remember that the controversy lies in the Amazon-generated query, not the shopper-generated query.
  Determining the answer certainly seems like a fair use of the legal system to me.
2. Re:Why legislation? by Obfuscant · 2013-02-26 09:36 · Score: 2
  
  If I walk into a Honda dealer and ask to see a Camry, are they going to just tell you to go to the Toyota dealer, or are they going to suggest that I might be interested in an Accord?
  Once, a very long time ago, I walked into a fast food joint and asked for "An All American Meal". This was when that phrase was a trademark for one of the major chains. I, of course, was in the wrong chain. They promptly escorted me out the door and warned me not to use those words on their property again. An eavesdropping lawyer notified the correct chain and I was sued in federal court for trademark infringement and fraud. I'm now penniless and destitute.
  No, of course not. They sold me their version of the same thing, and we all had a chuckle about it.
Re:Brick and Mortar by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-02-26 06:18 · Score: 5, Informative

In this case, the trademark holder was actively blocking sale of their product on Amazon and then suing Amazon for suggesting similar products that they did have in stock...
The audacity is jaw-dropping.
Re:Brick and Mortar by Trepidity · 2013-02-26 06:23 · 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
What? by SolitaryMan · 2013-02-26 06:25 · Score: 2

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.
Honestly, no idea what are you talking about. I only see ads for the stuff I JUST BOUGHT from them. Which I find pretty funny and stupid.

--
May Peace Prevail On Earth
Re:Brick and Mortar by Obfuscant · 2013-02-26 08:13 · Score: 2

To me it isn't. Can you go into a retail store and see a sign that says "Apple products" with nothing underneath them, and then a big arrow pointing to Samsung,

Amazon didn't have a sign saying "MTM Special Ops" with an arrow pointing to something else. The website visitor TYPED IN THAT STRING, and Amazon's search engine shows the search string and the results. It's a typical search engine, in that it doesn't even care if all the words match. My search returned not only watches. The "ops" matched a Luminox watch based on "ops" in the name as top result, which then gave the search engine the hint that I was looking for watches that matched that description. I also got hits for movies and games.

This is essentially what Amazon is doing by routing searches to competitor's products. Arguably with the retail logic above, the retailer (Amazon) would need to use a generic like "laptops/tablets" instead of the leading mark (ie, Apple).
How is Amazon's search engine supposed to limit visitors to typing in only approved and authorized words for their searches? "I'm sorry, I cannot search for MTM in the categories 'watches' or 'television' or 'movies'. Try something else, please."
Of course Amazon cannot have a category for "MTM Special Ops Watches", but that's not what happened here.
All trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
Re:Suggestions for subtly incorrect items by Lithdren · 2013-02-26 08:24 · Score: 3, Informative

Or you could read the product descriptions before clicking the 1-click purchase button and save yourself a lot of headache. ...oh shit, thats why they patented that!