Hacker News Reader

Comment by cgriswald | Hacker News Reader

Yes, finally. And they’re putting the cost on the manufacturers, even though it’s a problem they created. In effect, manufacturers are now paying for commingling and Amazon is reaping the benefits.

View on HN

What a hilarious notion that Amazon "created" the problem of counterfeiting. Counterfeiting has been an issue for centuries, long long before Amazon existed.

Amazon didn’t create the problem of counterfeiting, but they did create the problems on Amazon. If I purchase something on Amazon and it is counterfeit, I can’t blame or avoid the counterfeiter because Amazon has commingled inventory. Even if I buy from a trusted seller or even Amazon itself, I might get a counterfeit item. My only choice in that case is to not buy from Amazon at all.

If I buy anywhere else that allows third party sellers, I might get a counterfeit item, but I’ll know to avoid that seller in the future. And I can develop a meaningful relationship of trust with sellers; seller reviews about counterfeits will have meaning; and I can shop with a lot more confidence.

I think the point is that by creating a system that makes counterfeiting easy and doing nothing to stop it when they knew it was taking place (or now demanding payment to stop it), Amazon is somewhat responsible.

Putting the cost on manufacturers and potentially breaking legitimate resellers just feels straight out of the Walmart strongarm playbook. It feels like it should be against some FTC regulation somewhere that a transferrer of a good has the responsibility to not allow this to happen. The only historical equivalent I can think of is the movements of crude oil through pipelines where if you sell one type of oil and get a different oil on the buyers end the pipeline owner doesn't get to wash their hands of the affair and say 'its just oil, buyer beware.'

Amazon should be subsidizing 100% of this program if they can't take care of their own mess.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com