Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Amazon For Blocking Out Other Print On Demand Providers
from the had-to-see-that-coming dept
Back in March, we wrote about Amazon's surprise decision to only sell print-on-demand books that were serviced through Amazon's own print-on-demand system. This upset an awful lot of book authors who used alternatives and felt that Amazon was blocking them out and forcing them to use a solution they didn't like very much. Amazon tried to quell the anger by explaining the reasoning and saying that authors could still use other POD solutions if they supplied Amazon with an inventory of five books (which sort of defeats the purpose of POD). So, it should come as little surprise that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Amazon, claiming that it's violating anti-trust laws in blocking out other POD suppliers. It may be difficult to prove an actual anti-trust violation -- but no matter what the result, it's rather surprising that Amazon would do this, as the company had to know it would piss off a lot of authors who have been huge supporters of the site for many years. It's hard to see how the trouble of having to fulfill from other POD providers could really be worth that much anger and ill-will.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
by wasnt me on May 20th, 2008 @ 1:46pm
im probably missing a few things here.
but isn't amazon just a store? (online store true but just an other store), so what is the problem?.
you don't see future shop or radio shack getting sued for not selling a certain brand or product.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Anonymous Coward on May 20th, 2008 @ 1:51pm
Yes, you're missing a lot of few things. Amazon rents the storefront to the authors, and then demands that the author also use their printing service instead of the one that the author prefers.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by wasnt me on May 20th, 2008 @ 1:52pm
4got to point out, that amazons decision PROBABLY (i stress on that since i have no personal knowledge about this)came after a few of the authors they were dealing with that used different POD providers failed to deliver the books in a timely manner.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on May 20th, 2008 @ 1:57pm
Mike, in the future please use the less crude and jarring phrase "urinate off". Thank you.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Franchise Whale by Franchise Whale on May 20th, 2008 @ 2:16pm
Great stuff! Thanks for sharing, one fresh
idea and you can change the world, keep
up the great work.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Anonymous Urinator by Evil Mike on May 20th, 2008 @ 2:18pm
What's your problem? Fuck off then.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Amazon Owns A POD Company by Lonny Paul on May 20th, 2008 @ 4:10pm
Amazon owns a print-on-demand service company. Basically, they used to accept books for listing for several POD companies, then they said, "Um, we gotta protect all our revenue streams, so let's force 'em to use our service."
Now, a lawsuit.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on May 20th, 2008 @ 4:14pm
bite me
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Rick8400 on May 20th, 2008 @ 5:05pm
I can understand amazon's position on this. If someone ordered a POD book from Amazon and didn't receive it for three weeks (due to an outside POD service) it would look bad for Amazon even though they had no control over the situation. I don't expect to take a package into the UPS store have it wrapped and then shipped FedEx.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on May 20th, 2008 @ 5:32pm
If that was the case, and it wasn't just Amazon trying to make a few more bucks, then why not just re-design the service/site (or whatever, I don't know much about Amazon's services) to make it extremely freaking obvious that if you use another POD service then you're on your own. 'Pissing off' the people that want to use their service to sell their books is probably not the best way to go. Probably a better idea just to put the onus back on them instead they are responsible for late deliveries.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by wasnt me on May 21st, 2008 @ 5:50am
i thought of that because its still giving them the opportunity of using there "independent" POD if they give them 5 books in inventory.
granted its not the best solution but for now i think they can get the benefit of doubt.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment