Toys 'R' Us Wins Suit Against Amazon 157
theodp writes "Having prevailed in its bitter lawsuit against Amazon.com, Toys 'R' Us will create a new and independent Web site. A NJ judge found Amazon breached its agreement and ordered the two companies to sever their partnership Thursday. In a 131-page opinion, the judge termed Amazon's attempts to throw out e-mail evidence on the grounds that Internet communications lack reliability 'incomprehensible' and took a dim view of the testimony of some Amazon execs, including CEO Jeff Bezos' candor and 'rather childlike' explanations."
TRU/Amazon Bargaining (Score:4, Interesting)
RE: credability of internet evidence (Score:1)
Re: credability of internet evidence (Score:3, Insightful)
And she repeatedly complained about the ambiguous use of language in memorandums, contract agreements and discussions, conclud
Re: credability of internet evidence (Score:4, Informative)
It certain circumstances, where a contract is unfair, a judge can declare it invalid. However, in this case, the judge didn't "throw it out", he found that Amazon.com breached it.
Re: credability of internet evidence (Score:2)
But IANAL
and they are (Score:5, Funny)
"rather childlike"? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:"rather childlike"? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:"rather childlike"? (Score:2)
FRTFA (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Still up, though (Score:3, Informative)
contract (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather lousy thing to do if you ask me. Good business is about building mutually beneficial partnerships, not about beating up your neighbor and taking his lunch money. If I owned a company I would be wary of doing business with Amazon.
Re:contract (Score:2, Insightful)
Amazon allows other companies to compete with their own products also.
If you ask me, Toys 'R us just doesn't understand the long term strategy of trying to create sales lift by aiming to provide the customer with the best price. The idea is that in the long run, the sales lift created by the competitive marketplace will out pace the loss from having competitors
Re:contract (Score:1)
Wal*Mart is eating their lunch. It really doesn't matter how low TRU prices stuff, They'll never sell as many toys in July as December. Meanwhile, Walmart can sell just as low and brings in traffic all year long to buy standard items... plus a toy or two for their mouth-breathing, can't-be-bothered-with-contraception child. (Now you know the real reason they won't sell RU 486 :)
Re:contract (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:contract (Score:2)
How well I remember surviving endless clothes-shopping in a regular (non-strip) mall, on the promise that I'd get to go to K*B afterwards.
That would be the main reason I'd see parents bringing their kids in.
Re:contract (Score:2)
Re:contract (Score:2)
In my experience, it's far less painful to go to Toys R Us than Wal-Mart specifically because you're not having to deal with the hordes of people. And as l
Re:contract (Score:3)
TRU has by far the best selection of any place to buy toys. I bought my daughter the Loving Family Twin Time Dollhouse for Christmas and both Target and Toys R Us carry the stuff, but Target has only a couple small accessories while TRU carries a wider selection. But the widest se
Re:contract (Score:2)
TRU became, in perception, just another tab on Amazon.com and less than what they should have been; The Number One toy retailer.
This break should allow them to regain their independent corporate identity.
Reputation is more than epsilon (Score:5, Interesting)
While it's true that every business looks out for #1, I think you overstate the case in the opposite direction of the grandparent post.
Businesses have cultures and characters, just like people. And partners/allies approach businesses taking these into account; the reputation of a company can create revenue or costs accordingly. Those revenues and costs may not be the determining factor in every or even most situations, but they are real.
"Who steals my purse, steals trash, but he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him and makes me poor indeed." Of course Shakespeare put these words into the mouth of a scheming liar. Their truth is situational: it depends on your purse, and how much you need your reputation. If you're a poor tribal clansman, it is very true. You don't have material wealth worth mentioning, and you are mutually dependent on others like yourself for survival and defense. If, on the other hand, you're Louis XIV, you have no friends -- only rivals who have revealed their hands to various degrees. You're reputation is relatively unimportant, as people are tied to you by law and custom. Your purse is relatively more important becuase by it you maintain those laws. No one expects you to keep your word; your actions are like the weather. People can predict them in a general climactic way or a short term by scanning the horizon for fair or stormy weather. But nobody takes you word for what the weather will be at the end of next week.
Businesses exist along the same continuum, from small consultancies whose only real asset is their reputation up to the Sun King of all businesses: Microsoft. Within it's sphere, Microsoft wields unchallengeable power. Nobody who allies themselves with Microsoft today seriously believes that Microsoft won't issue a writ of execution later on if it suits them. This is the natural course of any entity which has untrammelled power backed by money. Other companies who are trying to work in the margins of Microsoft's domain cannot afford to act this way; it's not that they wouldn't; they're just not in a position to. If a company is going to draw customers away from Microsoft, then it has to convince those customers that it's trustworthy. Lack of trust and affection may very well hinder Microsoft's plans outside its core businesses, for example in the music field, where customers do not feel the weight of compulsion.
Re:Reputation is more than epsilon (Score:2)
Instead, she said that Amazon seemed to have worded communications and agreements in such a way that they allowed Amazon to "play their way." The principle that seems to be at work here is the idea that, whatever a contract may actually say to the letter, contracts should always be negotiated in good faith. That is, if I arrange a deal with you for some consideratio
Re:Reputation is more than epsilon (Score:2)
I'm not exactly sure why this is not a laudable business practice on Amazon's part. It's not like the contract said that "this is only valid as long as it is in
Re:Reputation is more than epsilon (Score:2)
-l
Amazing! (Score:3, Insightful)
Failed to act in a forthright manner?
Amazon? DECEITFUL? HOW CAN THIS BE?!?
Oh, that's right. They've been like this since day 1.
What amazes me is the number of apologists who will do anything but admit the plain reality. Amazon sucks. We would be better off with pretty much any other company replacing them.
Re:Amazing! (Score:5, Informative)
See SCO, see Sony, see Infinium. You're a little bit ignorant to be playing the "I can run a company better" game. Plz suggest an equivalent company rather than making false blanket statements.
Re:Amazing! (Score:3, Interesting)
How about, say, Powell's, B&N, Tattered Cover, Borders... There are less-evil companies.
Anyway, where's the false statement? Amazon are lying scumbags. They have been abusive and evil since the day they came into play, they have dramatically harmed the state of the art in patent law, they have spammed... Why should we tolerate them just because Sony's nasty?
Re:Amazing! (Score:2)
I know personally that I have never been spammed by them. I have actually never had any qualms with them. I find that they offer much better prices for textbooks than college bookstores and the company has saved me hundreds of dollars that way. Free shipping is nice to
Re:Amazing! (Score:2)
(Actually worked out better for me anyway)
Re:Amazing! (Score:2)
Um, you suck?
Sorry - you left yourself open to it and I couldn't resist.
Re:Amazing! (Score:2)
Re:Amazing! (Score:4, Insightful)
Example 2: Spam. Amazon doesn't spam everyone, but then, most people will never meet anyone who knew anyone Ted Bundy killed. Amazon has in the past spammed. They have made people jump through hoops to get off lists they never asked to be on.
Example 3: Everything from purchase circles on; Amazon doesn't do the right thing unless threatened or forced. Amazon starts with a default assumption that they have no obligation to behave in an ethical manner. Scratch that; Amazon has never shown any awareness of any kind of "ethical" concern at all. All they care about is public outcry.
Conclusion: Amazon may, if actively policed and watched and given clear threats of retaliation for misbehavior, behave in a tolerable manner. They have never shown any interest in doing the right thing without being threatened. Even when they publically back down from a bad thing (say, Bezos talking about the need for patent reform), they may continue doing it if they can get away with it.
To this day, Amazon has never acknowledged that there is a reason to prefer opt-in mailings. To this day, Amazon has not apologized for their frivolous lawsuit. Amazon has not stopped filing business-method patents, or declaring secrecy on their patents, despite allegedly realizing the problems with these practices.
Amazon employees have posted to Usenet from Amazon IP space to defend Amazon's practices, while not admitting to being employees. When busted, the guy disappeared without comment. Did Amazon do anything about this? No. We reasonably infer that it isn't a violation of company policy for staff to pretend to be customers instead of staff and give "unbiased" defenses while on the payroll.
In short, why would you ever trust them?
Yes, it saves money. Slave labor saves money, too. Amazon cheats other people, abuses the patent system, and passes the savings on to you.
Re:Amazing! (Score:2)
However, having worked for Borders, I definitely see them as overall un-evil. I never felt like I was trying to "sell" things, just helping the customers. Unlike another bookstore I could mention (*cough*Booksamillion) - worked there for exactly one day, couldn't take their "YOU MUST SELL DISCOUNT CARDS!" attitude.
Re:Amazing! (Score:2)
Re:Amazing! (Score:3, Informative)
Now that you say all that, I remember sometime in the past my brother bought something like 5 CD's from Amazon (we have always bought CD's to them easly), unfortunately none of them arrived and after two months he tried to contact Amazon but of course he did not got any kind of reply, so his $100 were s
Re:Amazing! (Score:2)
I'm not saying they're nice people or they are the most ethically oriented company out there, but they ARE a damn good online
Re:Amazing! (Score:2)
That plainly sucks.
As for the BBB I am not from USA, so I do not think I can get there and comply.
Re:Amazing! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Amazing! (Score:2)
Re:Amazing! (Score:5, Informative)
My personal experience in ordering from Amazon from 3 continents (Australia/Asia(India)/North America(USA)) has been pretty good in past 6 years.
I chose expedited shipping even if it costs more. I have ordered Star Trek Calendars from Sydney, Software Architecture books from USA and India, Audio CD's and Movie DVD from USA and each time they have delivered on time and correctly.
The only time i faced an issue with them was their e-book store when i ordered Star Trek DS9 (post DS9 series) ebooks and i was somehow unable to download one of the three e-books.
I complained to Amazon and they promptly refunded my credit card with the WHOLE bill amount for all 3 ebooks.
I trust Amazon far better than Overstock; even though their items are slightly overpriced by 2-10 dollars. You get prompt delivery unlike Overstock.
Re:Amazing! (Score:2)
In the couple of occasions I've had a problem with them their support has been great. I ordered a camera accessory and the original one was lost in the mail. They sent a new one, overnight (even though I hadn't paid for
Re:Amazing! (Score:1, Informative)
When I can get a book that is 3 months old and normally sells for over $59.95 for $1.99 with $4.99 shipping because the cover is a tad dirty I'm going to do it. Most technical books are horribly overpriced and the publishers know it. Am I hurting the little guy? Maybe. But I would rather buy my 5-10 SQL books for around $100.00 tota
Re:Amazing! (Score:2)
While we're throwing out anecdotal evidence I'll throw out mine. I've had nothing but good experiences with Amazon. I originally boycotted them for many years (maybe 3 - 5) because of their frivolous patents. Then I decided to give them a shot.
I do alot of online shopping and I now order hundreds if not thousands of dollars of merchandise from them. I have not had a single problem. In fact, I'm an Amazon Prime mem
Actually, I have had great luck with their CS (Score:2)
The one time that I had problems with Amazon is that the shipper was reporting my order as being delivered (in this case, it was a book), but I never had not received the product. After getting no help from DHL or the post office, I contacted Amazon. I received an email repl
Re:Amazing! (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Amazing! (Score:1)
Re:Amazing! (Score:2)
Change you e-mail preference (Score:2)
Re:Amazing! (Score:2)
And even if you do order from them, you don't get spam (unless you count order confirmations and shipment tracking as spam...)
Re:Amazing! (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Amazing! (Score:2)
Amazon NEVER spams you.
As a user of Amazon for past 6 years and having ordered items from 3 continents, i have NEVER had a single SPAM mail from Amazon.
Amazon may have abused Patent law, but then who hasn't? MSFT? IBM, Kodak?
Amazon may be many things, but a spammer? NEVER.
Re:Amazing! (Score:1)
Re:Amazing! (Score:2)
The REST of the story... (Score:5, Informative)
While looking for work a year ago, I attended a job search seminar - one of the persons I met there was a former executive at Toys R Us - he briefly summed up what killed the Toys R Us business model - Walmart.
Walmart simply sucked away any profit margins the Toys R Us Franchise once had - especially during the biggest toy buying season - Christmas.
According to him, going online with Amazon was a desparation move to gain some profitability back from Walmart - managed by Toys R Us execs who had not a clue about managing an online store.
Re:The REST of the story... (Score:1)
Yeah, seriously... Anybody else remember the year before TRU partnered with Amazon? Their massive failure to do their promised holiday shipping was a well-publicized disaster.
Without a doubt they'll do better now.
Re:The REST of the story... (Score:2)
And by that you mean, Toys R Us doesn't have any compelling advantage over Walmart. They offer slightly more selection, but the staff is just as clueless, the prices are higher, and the lines are longer. Plus you can't pick up ammo and milk at Toys R Us.
Walmart out did them in the 'big box of shelves with no value added' business and now they're crying about it. Call the waaambulance and support your local toy store.
Re:The REST of the story... (Score:2)
But the interesting thing is, Toys R Us didn't have a typical Toy Store business model, they had a Walmart business model. They never had people who just knew the product and could help out, they just had a large selection and rather than low prices, just sli
Re:The REST of the story...BUY LOCAL! (Score:2)
Farmer's markets are even pretty good for home-made and second-hand toys, as are church bazaars (as distinct from what--cathedral cathedrals?), swap meets and flea markets. It's a way of participating in recycling and saving big bikkies at the same time. Farmer's markets are terrific for fresh vege, and the best way to get inexpensive organic meat is to get to know the farmer and the butcher themselves. Informal networks of people who can provide things you need in exchange for stuff you have, but don't
OT: Buying local food (Score:5, Interesting)
Down the street from my house here in the city of San Francisco I have a little corner produce store. You can get pretty much any fresh food that you can get from Safeway: vegetables, fruit, dried goods, eggs, milk, etc.
First I started shopping there because it was just as convenient to get to as Safeway, and buying local seemed like a good thing. Then I noticed that the quality of the produce was much, much better than Safeway's. Safeway is buying in massive volume and they are buying vegetables that have been grown, treated and/or engineered to have long shelf lives. The stuff at this corner store is coming from the farmers to my street corner. It looks and tastes better in every way.
But, as I said, over the last year I noticed something even more surprising. You might think, based on what I've said, that I'm paying a little more to support my convictions and/or get nice produce. That's usually how it works: Buy from the big vendor, get the deep volume discounts. Buy from the little guy and pay more. BUT NO! The fact of the matter is that just about every single thing I buy at the corner store is cheaper than the same thing at Safeway.
There are some exceptions; mostly packaged foods like salad dressings or mayo. But mushrooms that cost $2.49/lb at Safeway cost $1.89 at the corner store. A container of milk that's $2.19 at Safeway is $1.79 at the corner store. Even something like a sack of flour or a packet of yeast costs less.
The lesson is that Safeway's business model does not necessarily work the way you think big retailers' business models work. I expect what they do is negotiate deep discounts with the packaged, prepared food vendors: Hot Pockets, Lean Cuisine, etc., and they sell them to the consumer at a minimal profit margin. They make up the difference on produce, fresh fruits and vegetables, and dry household goods.
Your average Joe Consumer is used to comparing prices on individual branded items. If a 12-pack of Coke normally costs $3.50, he'll notice when it's on sale for $1.99 and that will get him into Safeway. That same consumer, however, has fallen out of the habit of comparing pricess on piecemeal, by-the-pound items like fruits and vegetables -- and so that's where Safeway jacks up its prices.
Try it sometime. If you have access to a local green grocer, shop there a few times and make a note of what you pay for things. Then see what happens when you try to buy the same items the next week at your local Safeway or Albertson's. I bet you'll be surprised. Shop at the green grocer and you support local business, get better quality food, and pay less.
(Oh, and you should be eating more fruits and vegetables anyway.)
Re:OT: Buying local food (Score:2)
Though I can't speak as to Safeway stores, I had an interesting discussion with someone a year or so ago who claimed to hold a fair amount of stock in Kroger. He mentioned that Kroger used whatever margins they made on selling food products just to cover operating expenses, and didn't plan on actually making any substantial profit from sales. Rather, the food and consumer products they sold were merely a way to gain a cash-flow, which was then used to generate profit through the same manner as a bank - in
Re:OT: Buying local food (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:OT: Buying local food -- or even growing it! (Score:2)
You are SO right on!!
Another advantage of going in to a green grocer is purely for the emotional and spiritual uplift
I used to deliver newspapers to a green grocer in our town (and pick up some fruit and vege there at the same time), and it was just sheer delight going in there! The very aroma was intoxicating. And the care they took to rotate their fruit and vege stock, cull the ripest, put them on sale-- that's real value added, like the care that goes into proper maintenance of a software package
In other news: Shopping online unreliable! (Score:5, Insightful)
Wah?
I hope I am not the only person that thinks this is a total contradiction!
Yes, shop online with us... Sure, purchase goods using the Internet... Absolutely, we can email you a new password/invoice/receipt number... Use email to communicate for business purposes - you must be F&*king crazy!!!!
If I tried to explain why, in this day and age, when running an entire business empire online, I considered "Internet communications" unreliable, I think my efforts would end up "incomprehensible" too!
spoof? (Score:1)
Does the livedoor mess make it into the English news?
Re:spoof? (Score:4, Insightful)
I was thinking about this, and you know, Google gets a lot of flak for the storage-archive-nothings-ever-deleted thing; but could this be at least one positive side for most people?
I mean, really, it would be pretty preposterous to suggest that most people are capable of hacking and forging email on Google's servers, complete with Google's logs and metadata on the message transmission. Compared to a company's (or a person's) own private servers, it seems having a reputable 3rd party involved would add legitimacy in this case.
Thoughts?
~Rebecca
Re:spoof? (Score:2)
I can't. "On May 1, 2005 I sent an email to Amazon outlining the following:
When both parties have the email stored, one as a sent message and one as a received message, I'm curious as to why you think that would be too unreli
Re:In other news: Shopping online unreliable! (Score:2)
Re:In other news: Shopping online unreliable! (Score:2)
Actually, your honor, I'd say that a corporation dealing primarily in Internet commerce would be an excellent judge of the reliability of Internet communications. As a consumer, I'm rather glad that th
No, email *IS* unreliable (Score:2)
Sending sensitive information over email is as sane as sending it on a postcard... encrypt and sign it people...
Re:No, email *IS* unreliable (Score:2)
This is also known as perjury, when presented as evidence in court. Oops, your civil case just became a criminal one...
Re:No, email *IS* unreliable (Score:2)
so how about if Amazon has a bunch of received emails that are in the Sent boxes at TRU, and TRU has received emails matching ones in Sent boxes at Amazon? Should those be thrown out as unreliable? What if there is follow-up proof that the emails were received and were valid, such as phone calls and other correspo
Re:No, email *IS* unreliable (Score:2)
According to your logic, this proves that I did not send the messages.
Although I guess we should expect someone talking about "received by:" headers to actually know anything about how SMTP actually works.
Agreed, email is not legal evidence (Score:2)
How's this for comprehensibilty?:
I could fake a mail from you to Saddam Hussain stating that you would like to assasinate one of your political leaders for one hundred billion dollars. (hello to the security people now joining us, calm down, it's just an example). This email chain has dates and times.
Now
Re:Agreed, email is not legal evidence (Score:1)
Re:Agreed, email is not legal evidence (Score:2)
I could fake a mail from you to Saddam Hussain stating that you would like to assasinate one of your political leaders for one hundred billion dollars. (hello to the security people now joining us, calm down, it's just an example). This email chain has dates and times.
Now, try and prove to me the following: a) you didn't write it at all, b) it is exactly as first sent, c) the message was never sent in the first place.
I'd drop 8 years of outbound emails all signed with one o
Re:Agreed, email is not legal evidence (Score:2)
The absense of a bounce report in your logs shows nothing. All that your PGP signing does is ensures that the person on the other end cannot change your emails, or produce new entirely
Re:Agreed, email is not legal evidence (Score:2)
You miss mine; I'd be able to show that I've sent thousands and thousands of emails to people, all signed no matter how innocuous.
You'd have one email you claimed I sent that was important, which wasn't signed. You'd be hard pressed to prove I sent it, at that point.
Re:Agreed, email is not legal evidence (Score:2)
Re:In other news: Shopping online unreliable! (Score:2)
If you don't believe that email is unreliable, try responding to the "From" column on some of your spam and see how many of those "From" addresses are legitimate!
Where's the Judge's Decision? (Score:2)
I'm hoping to read it, because I'm leery of articles that paraphrase this stuff -- I always like to read the original source.
My fellow American (Score:2, Insightful)
Am I the only one who finds it extremely dangerous that email is accepted as "evidence" in 2006 by people who can't begin to understand "this tech stuff"?
Yikes.
Re:My fellow American (Score:2, Interesting)
Unreliable communications is not an excuse for breaching a contract.
Re:My fellow American (Score:2)
Re:My fellow American (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:My fellow American (Score:2)
Am I the only one who finds it extremely dangerous that email is accepted as "evidence" in 2006 by people who can't begin to understand "this tech stuff"?
Sure e-mail can be faked, but most companies have records of what they send and receive. When one company says, "hey we have this e-mail from you" and the other company replies with "we never sent you that and coincidentally for some reason that whole day worth of e-mail has been deleted from our servers, but no other days" it looks very suspicious. Th
Bottom line is... (Score:2)
We R Toys thought they were getting an exclusive wrap on all the toy-sales-hookup at Amazon.com; Amazon.com thought it was picking up brand recognition from We R Toys.
In the end, Amazon.com was selling toys from other mechanisms, and We R Toys wasn't kicking the profits to the moon with the joint adventure.
In the end, both parties (IMHO) have lost something here. Instead of just agreeing to void the contract and going their separate ways, they had to fight it out in an ugly and public way. Int
End of the super bargains - Screw you Amazon (Score:2, Informative)
This does suck in a way as it'll be the end of the crazy super bargain deals where Toys R Us has a 33% off each item (3 item minimum) and an Amazon.com coupon for an additional %20 off that amount. It was a killer deal back in September where I got the
Re:End of the super bargains - Screw you Amazon (Score:2, Informative)
Editor needed at MSNBC.COM (Score:3, Insightful)
Reuters contributed to the story.
New Year's? New locations? New York? New London?
Someone needs to RTA before they publish it.
Re:Editor needed at MSNBC.COM (Score:1)
Actually, the relationship with TRUS was complex (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the TRUS relationship was weighing heavily on both companies. Amazon doesn't like to sell toys directly, as they're very difficult to manage in a supply chain -- they're bursty, vulnerable to all kinds of trends that are difficult to predict, and very fragile to ship. TRUS' technical staff was often frustrated by the weird working relationships imposed by our respective corporate bureaucracy. And finally, it really cramped Amazon's ability to create new products and services, since we were constantly having to consider whether a new feature would ruffle TRUS' feathers.
I think both parties are better off with a divorce. It's quite a risk for TRUS to create a new online store from scratch, but they've got some good people who've had several years of experience working with Amazon. I wish them the best of luck.
Re:Actually, the relationship with TRUS was comple (Score:1)
Mall Stores (Score:2)
Good (Score:2)
Anyone been to bricks & mortar Toys R Us latel (Score:2, Insightful)
"Incomprehensible!" (Score:2)
Re:"Incomprehensible!" (Score:2)
How do you fake all the headers (included the one that are added by the recipients email server)? The Received By: line will have incorrect information up to the point where the email leaves your control.