Bullet point summary of what M-Edge states happened between 2009-2011 here:

http://www.geek.com/articles/news/kindle-case-maker-m-edge-s...

Certainly seems that the only people that get treated well by Amazon are its customers. Employees seem to be treated fairly badly and partners apparently too.

This could be an interesting PR tactic too, as it must make it tough to convince happy Amazon customers to join in any sort of movement against Amazon, because they don't feel the same way as the employees/partners.

Amazon: the new Walmart?

It seems like Amazon acts as a bully more often than not. Reminds of the Frontline about Walmart.

This article is a much better summary of the situation, if I only had the time to read one, I’d read it.

Sadly this sounds like business as usual for small companies who sell accessories or add-ons for larger products.

I imagine if the execs in charge of "encouraging" M-Edge to play along hadn't been so heavy handed then we would have never even heard about this.

The thing about accessories is the profit margins are so incredibly fat you can make all sorts of demands and most accessories makers will acquiesce. When I was working at BB most accessories were in the 10x cost range.

This is the first time I've seen an accessories maker push back. But this is the first time I've seen a retailer try to get a commission retroactively. I can probably imagine this came from an over eager Amazon exec trying to squeeze a little extra into his quarterly reports. I can't imagine even Walmart trying something that brash.

This looks to be more than a heavy-handed approach. Amazon kept updating the terms in order to stifle M-Edge. They even demanded a cut of the profits from sales to other retailers, while at the same time copying (and infringing) M-Edge's jacket design. At least, that's what is being claimed in the lawsuit.

That's pretty much the name of the game in the accessory market. You're never going to have as much information as the company who makes the device and they are always going to want a chunk.

See Apple for a good example, they're snatching 10% of all accessories off the top (that's for all sales, with they're own massive sales channel the return really fattens up). Not to mention that Apple makes and markets their own accessories.

> Not to mention that Apple makes and markets their own accessories.

It's interesting to me that you cannot, and never could, buy an Apple case[1] for your iPhone. Also interesting how quickly Apple killed their Bluetooth earpiece.

Seems like if you want to make accessories, making them for Apple's devices means you don't have to worry about competing with the device maker.

  - - -

1. Where "case" is defined as a container to protect the device from both screen damage and drops. Apple does sell two items that protect the iPhone from one or the other, but not both:

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/iphone_acc...

Apple also sells the non-drop-protecting case for original iPad, but it's so unattractive that its purpose seems to have been to have a cover at launch without leaking device specs, rather than to take advantage of the case market. iPad 2's "Smart Cover" also isn't a case, so seems to be Apple's way of carrying the iPod color choice concept over to the iPad line.

I think it was probably due to Steve Jobs' insistence that the device as shipped was perfect and that a case is ugly and not necessary. He seemed pretty stoked about the Smart Cover because it added to the iPad instead of covering it up.

Please, no pay walled articles on HN.

From my brief overview of the situation, it seems ethically questionable for Amazon to do this, but not unlawful.

Should it really be against the law to reduce the visibility of a competitors accessory for your own product on your own site? I don't think so.

I would have a different position if Amazon started harassing competition on other sites, like eBay.

It's more of a question of bad business on the M-Edge side. Don't rely on your competition for business. You'll get stuck when they decide to change.

You could have said the same thing about internet browsers on a companies own operating system a decade or so ago.

If a company is building a platform, they face antitrust issues with competitors using their platform.

Perhaps, but it's kinda different with websites. There are plenty of alternate marketplaces for products on the web other than Amazon. It's not the same as Microsoft having the vast majority of the market.

This highlights the risk of being a small player at the beck and call of a much larger one.

It's the same problem 3rd party devs have had with Twitter, anyone who uses the Facebook API, and a variety of other groups.

When your product is wholly dependent on a single component from a single vendor... risky is an understatement.

It's size too. If you don't have something they want, they have no incentive to help you. If you are small, the Not Invented Here syndrome pushes them to think they could donut better themselves.