M-Edge Sues Amazon

[TechnoCat]

I dunno - it seems to me very likely that M-Edge has reported very selectively in an attempt to bias people with no law or corporate experience. And it will always get some people. But... I cannot envision Amazon giving M-Edge an exclusive. Or guaranteeing them prime placement in perpetuity or even for three years. And there is always an escape clause allowing, with a few conditions, for either partner to exit.

If we do assume Amazon has competent lawyers drafting their agreements, then the contract neither guaranteed M-Edge anything like a monopoly or permanent prime placement, nor did it lack an escape/severability clause. In which case, legally, M-Edge is screwed.

Their complaint backs this up. They aren't accusing Amazon of breaching the terms really, but rather of bullying. And it is precisely like a drug addict being upset that the sample hits were free and now they cost a lot. M-Edge got addicted to Amazon-sized revenue, and now is upset that they must either surrender an increasing percentage of the large pie or go back to a teeny tiny pie of their own.

Poor babies. But I don't see Amazon as being in the wrong here. Not particularly nice, but not illegal or even unethical.

[TechnoCat]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

In unrelated news, I think any and all variations on the phrase "This is only one side of the story" should now be classified a derailing tactic.

I mean, what can you say to that? Yes, yes it is. Point?

Oddly, I had the opposite reaction. The posters who leapt to condemn based on less than half the story seemed to me to have a high susceptibility to propaganda. They didn't keep that basic fact - that it was half or less of the story - in mind.

What would you say to them?

[Connallmac]

Originally Posted by TechnoCat

Oddly, I had the opposite reaction. The posters who leapt to condemn based on less than half the story seemed to me to have a high susceptibility to propaganda. They didn't keep that basic fact - that it was half or less of the story - in mind.

What would you say to them?

I had the opposite reaction as well. Of course M-edge's lawyers are going to portray Amazon in the worst light possible, this is a filing for a lawsuit!

[teh603]

Seems par for the course for megacorp negotiation tactics. I've seen Wal-Mart do the exact same thing to its suppliers; give a contract, then start changing the contract out from under them. Course nobody's had the money to stand up to any company doing that, at least not as far as I've heard.

[6charlong]

Originally Posted by teh603

Seems par for the course for megacorp negotiation tactics. I've seen Wal-Mart do the exact same thing to its suppliers; give a contract, then start changing the contract out from under them. Course nobody's had the money to stand up to any company doing that, at least not as far as I've heard.

I know you're right teh603 but I find this fact discouraging. I've been an Amazon customer since about the beginning and I've generally felt I could trust their product suggestions. I've used several makes and models of covers and book lights over the years and I like m-Edge's Go Jackets and book lights the best, especially with this new generation of touch screen book readers.

Now to find out Amazon is using the Walmart model to squeeze manufacturers explains why buying from Amazon has been an unsatisfying experience lately. It used to be easy to research on Amazon. This makes me wonder what other products Amazon has guided me to and whether the products for sale there will begin to be inferior quality the way the Walmart stock has gone. If I can't trust them to be honest about products then I've lost a useful resource.

[TechnoCat]

Originally Posted by teh603

Seems par for the course for megacorp negotiation tactics. I've seen Wal-Mart do the exact same thing to its suppliers; give a contract, then start changing the contract out from under them.

Generally within the terms of the contract, though. It's not like Wal-Mart or Amazon has been breaking contracts, so much as exercising the terms of certain clauses allowing either party to either exit the contract under specific conditions or playing competing vendors against each-other for most-favored status.

For example... Suppose Wal-Mart had a contract with Murray for gasoline push lawnmowers... as long as Murray provided an exclusive model to Wal-Mart at a specific price, Wal-Mart would feature that Murray model in any gasoline push lawnmower ads. Now Honda comes along hungry for a deal, which Murray refuses to match. So Wal-Mart gets Honda to provide a gasoline-powered self-propelled mower for a really aggressive price. Suddenly there are no ads featuring the Murray model... not precisely because Wal-Mart broke the contract, but because it didn't apply to self-propelled mowers, and Wal-Mart is de-prioritizing push mowers due to the deal.

I suspect M-Edge ran into the same thing. Carefully, legally-tight, contracts that gave them a limited-time advantage, at a cost. It's not like Amazon is really bullying them; their competitors are. Amazon is more likely simply playing the vendors against each-other for the best terms.

Not that I have any inside knowledge; I don't. But I do have experience with the big dawgs in the business world, including as an Amazon vendor.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by TechnoCat

Oddly, I had the opposite reaction. The posters who leapt to condemn based on less than half the story seemed to me to have a high susceptibility to propaganda. They didn't keep that basic fact - that it was half or less of the story - in mind.

What would you say to them?

I would say that they are discussing the article and not attempting to shut down all conversation because there might be some nuance NOT YET KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC.

[TechnoCat]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I would say that they are discussing the article and not attempting to shut down all conversation because there might be some nuance NOT YET KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC.

Just to ensure I understand your POV... if the poster attacks Amazon on the basis that the article has all the relevant data or, alternatively, on the basis of some hypothetical additional "nuance not yet known" (your words), that poster is engaging in good and honest discussion.

But, OTOH, if a poster defends Amazon, either hypothesizing that there is other unrevealed data or even proposing what it might be, that poster is "attempting to shut down all conversation" (again, your words) and their words are only mean to be "derailing" (yet again, your words.)

There seems to be a bit of an inconsistency here, unless the consistency is that Amazon must be wrong.

[anamardoll]

No, my POV is that when someone says, "Wow that article seems pretty damaging" and someone else trips over themselves to post that WE ONLY KNOW ONE SIDE STOP TALKING NOW, then it's derailing and it should be deemed as such.

As is, you know, arguing with me ad nasuem about this in deliberately bad faith because none of the above is anything I've said or implied or thought or indicated. I mean, we're seriously into John McClane interpretation now.

ETA: Also, the statement was made something like 7 posts in by someone who had ALREADY defended Amazon reflexively without reading the article.

I'm not responding to you again on this issue.

[afa]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

No, my POV is that when someone says, "Wow that article seems pretty damaging" and someone else trips over themselves to post that WE ONLY KNOW ONE SIDE STOP TALKING NOW, then it's derailing and it should be deemed as such.

I don't think that is what the poster said.

While you're accusing others of bad faith, Ana, it's worth noting that your argument can be viewed as doing the same.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by afa

Very poor logic there.

The point is rather obvious: that before everyone flies off the handle berating Amazon for being the embodiment of evil, it's worth remembering that we have no way of knowing how true and accurate M-Edge's claims are.

Again, poor logic.

<quotes another poster who put words in Ana's mouth>

This.

Stating that I have used poor logic without explaining why is an assertion of facts without evidence.

And, again, both you and the other poster so very interested in engaging with me on this issue have apparently not read (or have forgotten) the post I was responding to, which was someone who Did Not Read The Article until after they posted in the first 10 posts that Amazon can do anything they want because it's their store and everyone should stop talking about it now because Amazon Makes The Rules.

Originally Posted by markbot

My opinion is that it's Amazon's store. They can sell whatever they want and charge M-Edge any fee. If M-Edge doesn't like that...then tough luck. This is just sour grapes. M-Edge lacks integrity for making this spat public. Other distributors should think twice before doing business with M-Edge.

Originally Posted by markbot

yeah, i suppose the fact that they had the 3 year contract makes amazon look like a d-bag. i should have read the article more closely. if this is the case, then it's amazon who lacks integrity by threatening to "play" with the listing...and thus forcing them to sign a new contract. it sounds like m-edge needs better contract negotiators.

although, we are only hearing one side of the story. i will reserve judgement until there are more facts. the patent infringement aspect seems bogus though.

So I was responding to a poster who didn't read the article ("closely" *snerk*), defended Amazon reflexively, and then when people posted that zie was factually wrong, they back-pedaled to a We Only Know One Side stance, which is of course the usual defensive fallbacks of reflexive defenders.

And my post was: Yes, yes it is. Point?

If you disagree with what I've said, feel free to say why instead of just asserting that I'm wrong and hive-fiving another potser when they put words in my mouth.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by afa

I don't think that is what the poster said.

While you're accusing others of bad faith, Ana, it's worth noting that your argument can be viewed as doing the same.

Well, while we're talking about bad faith, it's pretty unfair for you to wipe out everything you just said to me asserting that "Poor logic PERIOD" and also "here are some words for your mouth" in this post and replace it with something else entirely. An ETA would have perhaps been more sensitive to the fact that your original post -- that I responded to -- is now gone.

It's fine that you disagree with me or my snerky comment to a poster who put zie's foot in by not reading an article, but I really do not understand why you feel invested in patting a poster who basically said I can only be motivated by Amazon Fan-Boi Hate when I would think you know by now that I'm not.

[afa]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

And, again, both you and the other poster so very interested in engaging with me on this issue have apparently not read (or have forgotten) the post I was responding to, which was someone who Did Not Read The Article until after they posted in the first 10 posts that Amazon can do anything they want because it's their store and everyone should stop talking about it now because Amazon Makes The Rules.

With all due respect, it is you who have forgotten the post. The "Amazon can do what they want" aspect is not what you wrote about.

TechnoCat's issue with your post was about your claim that people should stop saying that it is one side of the story, because it is apparently an attempt at "derailing tactic". That implies that you are accusing him of deliberately attempting to mislead or perhaps direct the flow of conversation. That is an accusation against a poster without any evidence.

I don't think he was attempting to halt any conversation about the article. What he said was "although, we are only hearing one side of the story. i will reserve judgement until there are more facts." Not the pronoun I in the quote.

So how can you accuse him of trying to stop conversation?

I am almost amused at your indignant (and, I suspect, somewhat angry) response, considering that I hardly said anything that damning. I hope the reasons behind my initial post are now clear.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by afa

TechnoCat's issue with your post was about your claim that people should stop saying that it is one side of the story, because it is apparently an attempt at "derailing tactic". That implies that you are accusing him of deliberately attempting to mislead or perhaps direct the flow of conversation. That is an accusation against a poster without any evidence.

Hey, afa? Can you point out to me where TechnoCat posted in this thread prior to my statement about derailing?

ETA: Because from my seat over here, it sounds like you're saying that I accused a poster without any evidence without even being aware that said poster exists. I didn't even know who TechnoCat was before he leapt all over my reply to markbot.

[afa]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Well, while we're talking about bad faith, it's pretty unfair for you to wipe out everything you just said to me asserting that "Poor logic PERIOD" and also "here are some words for your mouth" in this post and replace it with something else entirely. An ETA would have perhaps been more sensitive to the fact that your original post -- that I responded to -- is now gone.

Because the posts preceding mine had already addressed some of my points, so I didn't see any point in keeping it, as it was now 'outdated' (so to speak). And by the time I posted the new one, you had already responded to the original one.

It's fine that you disagree with me or my snerky comment to a poster who put zie's foot in by not reading an article, but I really do not understand why you feel invested in patting a poster who basically said I can only be motivated by Amazon Fan-Boi Hate when I would think you know by now that I'm not.

I do know that.

I do not agree with the Amazon Hater aspect of it; I agree with the logical contradiction that was pointed out.

You seem to be in a pretty bad mood for some reason. I detect a distinct note of anger in the posts. If I said something to encourage that, I apologize.

So let me just surmise my thoughts: I don't think you're an Amazon hater; I don't think there is anything wrong with someone pointing out that we should hear both sides of the argument before making judgments. The End.