Yikes. Makes me wonder what kind of recourse could be possible. Often I see a lot of "death to IP protections!" chants around here, which makes this situation all the more interesting. In my view this is a pretty clear 'derivative' infringment, and if there's enough of them, could there be a class-action approach to signing up those who can make the connection? "Ripping-shit-off" isn't a very pleasant business model in my opinion.
Except in many cases there was no rip off involved.
Very common example: Someone sees something on alibaba that looks cool. Say an apple peeler for $.50. So they buy 10k of them, slap on a label that says BlahBlah Inc, and sell on Amazon for $10. Maybe they give away 500 of them on review sites to build up some reviews for the brand BlahBlah Inc apple peelers.
Other people buy the same thing from alibaba, slap a different label on, sell for $8.
If Amazon goes straight to the manufacturer and asks for it in a different color to sell for $5 under the "Amazon Basics" label.. who really got ripped off? The invention was already there. The wholesaler was already there. It is just shifting around who gets what piece of the profit pie.
Can see 100s of these kind of sellers on /r/FulfillmentByAmazon
Okay, a first-to-market scenario like you describe doesn't fit with the 'rip off' mentality, and I get that. It's simply herding toward a new market by way of being the first to get traction. Sure, if Amazon Basics sells a 'household paper shredder' it's not like the concept was lifted whole cloth, and the manufacturing diversity is already inherent. That's fine, I see that.
But, that's not at all what I'm describing though, and which is far more destructive: if an actual, innovative product gets copied. If such cases are rare with Amazon as the copying entity, it still matters from a recourse standpoint. So, in a different example, if a company creates an innovative paper cutter, unlike any other on the market, patents it, makes it, and it sells well, this is the scenario: if 15 months later Amazon Basics has a design and functioning clone at a price that undercuts the original, then that should be a case to hash out in court and if violating trade / patent protections, slapped with punitive fines.
Sure anyone who violates a patent and sells it should be punished. I am sure it happens, but it doesn't seem to be what most of Amazon Basics is doing...
I get that distinction, and wonder why the patent isn't solid enough to pursue action against what looks like a direct imitation. If a copy can get so close but still avoid 'infringement' then the patent isn't doing its function properly. Strange.
