Hacker News Reader

Comment by pen2l | Hacker News Reader

> This is interesting because Amazon isn't exactly known for supply chain integrity.

The supply chain integrity problems were allowed by Amazon because it benefited their bottom line. If they wanted it perfect, they could have made it perfect.

Remember when the eclipse was happening and they actually did a pretty good job of removing all glasses which weren't safe? They know where integrity counts, and I think when it comes to pharmaceuticals they'll know how to play this game clean. As another user commented: Amazon didn't get this humongous by making silly mistakes like this.

View on HN

Remember when the eclipse was happening and they actually did a pretty good job of removing all glasses which weren't safe?

They also recalled a number of good units, which only sowed confusion and anger among buyers.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/nation-now/2017/08/14/a...

And it turns out some of the counterfeit glasses did get out to to buyers who thought they were purchasing legitimate units.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-lawsuit-eclips...

I tried doing a limited google search for any news about that story that occurred since November of last year and got 0 hits. Did the case die or is it that the media just doesn't care enough for there to be a single update to the story?

Probably have to check court records to see if it's still open or closed and what happened.

There's activity on the case (2:17-cv-2313-PMD) as recently as earlier this month, but you'll need a Lexis or PACER account to dig in and see what's up. But it doesn't look dead. Amazon is going to probably bury the plaintiffs in paperwork.

> They know where integrity counts, and I think when it comes to pharmaceuticals they'll know how to play this game clean. As another user commented: Amazon didn't get this humongous by making silly mistakes like this.

Exploding hoverboard case shows how hard it is to beat Amazon in court

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/02/amazon-not-liable-for-explod...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17216972

> [T]here were so many cases of fires and explosions that Amazon had halted sales. [...] Fox's case was filled with testimony and evidence illustrating that Amazon execs were concerned about the hoverboards sold on its site. [...] [A]n Amazon vice president said the company had decided to halt sales of hoverboards and send a 'non-alarmist' email to existing customers [...] Fox received the email the next day. It referenced 'recent news reports of safety issues' and offered 'safety tips' for using the product as well as an option to return the device for a refund. There was no use of the word 'fire' or 'explosion.' Fox testified that if Amazon had said that 'they knew what they knew, I certainly would have gotten it out of my house.'

I remember that a lot of people found that Amazon told them their genuine glasses were fake, and a lot of people with obvious fakes weren't told anything. They even managed to screw over some sellers of high-end telescope filters that weren't being counterfeited.

> Remember when the eclipse was happening and they actually did a pretty good job of removing all glasses which weren't safe?

Only after people let them know they were not safe and not within a reasonable timeframe for people to order replacements.

That’s your opinion. I disagree. With the glasses they probably needed lots of filtering by hand. Costed them a lot of money. They were afraid of costly lawsuits. But they don’t have the capacity to do that with every product they sell.

If fake goggles had liability problems wait till they sell a fake medication.

They’ll invest the resources to ensure that doesn’t happen.

Amazon didn’t get big by being stupid.

Invest, or lobby for law changes to protect themselves.

Your point stands.

It's 'easy' to track eack item by type and source. They chose not to.

No, Amazon totally had the ability to separate glasses from different suppliers and keep them apart in the warehouse.

The bogus ones could then have been isolated and recalled, but this is not what happened.

I'd say there are two differences between goggles and medication.

1) Goggles used the existing supply chain. Which, as noted, was designed around the idea that customers would rather have cheaper things from any vendor that things from a specific vendor. Presumably the greenfield / acquired med supply chain is engineered around different desires and regulations.

2) By the time the goggle issue came up, inventory was already in the system. With some presumably co-mingled. I'm just saying I wouldn't want to be the DB analyst who got tasked with untangling that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com