Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Businesses Government The Courts United States Your Rights Online

Federal Court OKs Amazon's System of Suggesting Alternative Products 102

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Federal Court OKs Amazon's System of Suggesting Alternative Products

Comments Filter:
  • cry some more (Score:5, Insightful)

    by X0563511 ( 793323 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @02:06PM (#43016217) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • Re:cry some more (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dexter Herbivore ( 1322345 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @02:15PM (#43016321) Journal
    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?
  • Why legislation? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CaptainNerdCave ( 982411 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @02:18PM (#43016365)

    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.

  • by Trepidity ( 597 ) <delirium-slashdot.hackish@org> on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @02:23PM (#43016429)

    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.

  • Re:Truly sad (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @02:32PM (#43016589)

    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.

  • Re:cry some more (Score:2, Insightful)

    by interval1066 ( 668936 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @02:52PM (#43016819) Homepage Journal
    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..."

"The number of Unix installations has grown to 10, with more expected." -- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June, 1972