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."

10 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 MDMurphy · · 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.

  2. Truly sad by Ravensfire · · 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 Osiris+Ani · · 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.

    2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. Re:Brick and Mortar by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · 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.

  5. 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
  6. Re:Suggestions for subtly incorrect items by Lithdren · · 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!