Amazon Served

2 thoughts on “Amazon Served”

1. Plaintiffs should also sue Amazon under the antitrust laws. If amazon had competition it would not be able to do so much damage. Antitrust does not seem to be used as much as it ought to be these days. Violation of it is assuredly a factor in this case.

2. Being a umble person with no legal knowledge I am trying to understand the lawsuit in layman’s terms.

   It seems to me that this is perhaps like a Taxi company that has always been given business by a Hotel, to collect its guests from the Rail Station or Airport and enjoyed a good regular income. Now, the hotel has bought a taxi company and moved the office inside the hotel, the cars are parked in the car park. So, this hotel says on its website that only the cars from its in-house taxi company will be allowed to pick up its guests. Thus the other taxi firms lose out and the one that had the biggest income now wants to sue the hotel for the loss of that income.

   Does that sound like a layman’s summary?

   I’m a writer and a researcher. Somehow, no matter how I look at this I can’t see anything unfair about buying a business and then telling everyone that it is now the only operation that will be recognised by the parent company. I have seen this a hundred times. When I worked in the little town of Northampton in England where the shoe industry was huge, one company bought a shoe manufacturing outfit and issued an order to all of the companies that it dealt with that all its footwear would now come only from that subsidiary. A court injunction was taken out by a major shoe manufacturer who had been the supplier to all the subsidiaries of this company. They lost. It was considered to be fair competition.

   I am totally unbiased on this but wonder where this will lead. I watch the continuing activity with interest.

Comments are closed.