Item — HN Reader

> The lawsuit says the parties’ illegal agreement brought the number of third-party sellers of Apple products on Amazon Marketplace from roughly 600 to just seven sellers – a loss of 98%, and by doing so, Amazon, which was formerly a marginal seller of Apple products, became the dominant seller of Apple products on Amazon Marketplace.

Apple (future argument) - “We regularly review our sellers for counterfeit goods. During this review, we found indications of non-original Apple products. We regularly co-operate with our industry partners to maintain high standards for our products”

^ that’s my version not Apple’s.

1 comments

That hypothetical argument doesn't even make sense. Apple could (and still can) have counterfeits taken down. This has nothing to do with that.

The counterfeiters can create accounts faster than you can shut them down, which is likely what led them to the next step, asking Amazon to only permit certain vetted resellers.

It makes a great deal of sense if you get into the wording. Non-original doesn't necessarily mean counterfeit. It could refer to "not sold by Apple or an authorized retailer", i.e. used / refurbs.

I don't think they'd go down that path. Risk of ending up in the pile of corporations who have lost the fight against the law of first sale.

It can also refer to retail stolen and grey imports, which are a huge issue for everyone in the chain.

I'm not sure that I buy it either, but I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility that Apple would take more proactive steps than merely waiting to find counterfeits and report them, especially when a marketplace like Amazon is so poorly curated that the counterfeiters will just pop back up again.