Feeds

back to article Print-on-demand crusader tags Amazon with anti-trust suit

After threatening to limit print-on-demand sales to books printed by its very own print-on-demand printer, Amazon is facing an anti-trust lawsuit. Earlier this year, as we reported here at The Reg, the world's largest e-tailer told many print-on-demand publishers it would destroy their Amazon "Buy" buttons if they didn't start …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Hurrah for Booklocker!

It's about time somebody stood up to Amazon on this issue--their attempt to strong-arm publishers into using Amazon's captive print service are outrageous. And I'm not surprised it was Booklocker. They're one of the few POD services that seems more interested in supporting their authors than in filling their own pockets. I've dealt with Angela Hoy before, and she's a straight shooter who tells it like it is. I hope Amazon backs down... before they are shot down by the courts.

0
0
Coat

That about sums it up

"If you pre-ship books, it's no longer print-on-demand."

...the one with an ISBN on the back

0
0
Gates Horns

You can bet Amazon is under FTC investigation

And for a lot more anti-trust behavior than just this POD issue.

0
0
Alert

title

Eh? So how does that argument stand up? When I order four items from Amazon UK it always turns up on two deliveries... so they can sneak the DVDs out of Jersey without the VAT, and the books then come form somewhere on the mainland.

Fulfilment centre - don't make me laugh.

Amazon can handle a multiple order of goods which include MarketPlace goods, DVDs from Jersey Tax Havens, and books from the UK. So it should be able to handle this as well.

It's all greed.... Amazon wants to sell you EVERYTHING.... (I am waiting for the merger with Tescos...)

(note to self - don't post when drinking scrumpy... now where's that anon button...)

0
0

recognizable behaviour

This is quite recognizable from Amazon's behaviour in a different context: Kindle. Lock the book to the device, and lock both to the purchase method. Got to be resisted.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

RE:recognizable behaviour

Worked for Apple.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Angela Hoy is right...

Amazon Advantage IS onerous. The terms are a rip-off, whichever way you swing it. If I could find a POD service that served Europe, I'll be happy to switch to them instead of this ludicrous bunch.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

@AC

Even better, they can handle the case where they don't actually hold the stock - Amazon only holds stock of the most popular items, if you order something that only sells a few copies a month, then it actually comes from someone like THE (now owned by Woolworths).

0
0
Flame

wankers!

Amazon are reminding me of ebay, forcing EVERYTHING down paths that make THEM more money. Ebay and Amazon ... better known now it appears as complete wankers!

0
0
Flame

Hmmmm

Seems to me that Amazon can refuse to sell anything they wish, for whatever reason they wish, or for no reason at all.

Amazon is not OBLIGATED to give a seller anything unless Amazon and the seller have entered into an agreement requiring them to do so. Though I see how this is slimy, and though I am most certainly not an anti-trust law expert, it would seem to me that Amazon doesn't have to justify a decision to stop offering direct sale of a title. That's their prerogative.

Welcome to the free market, folks. If you don't like what Amazon is doing, you have every right to not sell your books there.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Justification nonsense

@Amazon:

"Hoy points out that her POD publisher can drop-ship Amazon-purchased items directly to buyers. But Amazon argues there are cases where books must travel through fulfillment centers first:

"If a customer orders a POD item together with an item that we're holding in inventory - a common case - we can quickly print and bind the POD item, pick the inventoried item, and ship the two together in one box, and we can do so quickly. If the POD item were to be printed at a third party, we'd have to wait for it to be transhipped to our fulfillment center before it could be married together with the inventoried item."

Amazon's claimed justification (in my experience) is nonsense because Amazon routinely multiple-ships and never waits for items to be bundled together. It eats the extra shipping cost because it can be paid quicker for those items that are shipped.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.