nintendoeverything.com
Yes. Amazon seeking lower prices from Nintendo compared to Walmart so they can undercut them is illegal. It violates antitrust laws. From what I am reading, it was already a crime of conspiracy for Amazon to ask that of Nintendo, irregardless of if it went through or not.
You can bet that they called him the same day for a similar reason, right before Phil visited him for a buyout.
There is a difference between saying "we will buy x amount of consoles for y dollars" which is a legal offer and negotiating tactic. It is illegal to be like "we want the lowest price because we are trying to get rid of our competitors".
Retailers are asking for kickbacks in order to hide the true purchase price. He was asked to help commit financial fraud. You can't refund people under the table that isn't put in the books, which was what Amazon was asking.
Where does it say the funds Amazon ask for were illegal under the table deals not in the books?
Kickbacks are illegal. You are either selling or not selling. Gifting free money separately that is deliberately hiding the true purchase price is accounting manipulation.
Because it's not actually illegal.
Fixed fee payouts, annual vendor agreements with payouts, keep product x on the shelf an extra year and the supplier will pay $10k, etc.... happens all the time at any retailer and supplier.
Netflix wanted Nintendo to pay for the development of the app.
Yes, you two gents, who are clearly also the heads of major multi billion collar corporations, know better about what NoA can and can't legally do with partners than Reggie Fils-Aime, ex-President and COO of NoA.
There is nothing illegal about that though. Wanting lower prices is allowed. What antitrust law does it violate? If Amazon had said stop selling at walmart and I would cut my take that would be illegal but what law does haggling a lower supplier price break?
Easy, they want you playing games on it. Get bored and buy more games. They don't want to sell a portable Netflix device that sometimes plays games.
Amazon wasn't going to eat the cost. They wanted Nintendo to eat the cost and agree to go along with their anti-competitive illegal tactic.
.
It is illegal if the purpose is to undercut fair competition. One retailer having a temporary marketing promotion that another doesn't have is legal. A permanent discount so that one retailer can have a lower price than all others is not. The only way it's justified is if the retailer is buying in quantities sufficient to actually lower the cost of producing the product for the retailer.
Nobody is saying they have more knowledge than the exec or lawyers regarding the matter. They're asking what amazon wanted exactly because asking for lower prices from the supplier isn't illegal unless they offer something to Nintendo to coercive them into raising prices elsewhere. Why would Nintendo stop selling there too? Just sell your product for the same price you do to other retailers and problem solved.Amazing that some people here thinks they have more knowledge about the subject than a former president of a billionaire company advised by a massive legal department… Gaf never fails
Amazon didn't want that deal, that is the issue that Reggie is pointing here. Amazon wanted a illegal deal.
"Amazon wanted a illegal deal". People are asking what's illegal about it because "I want a lower price" isn't an illegal deal or part of antitrust laws despite what centralscrutiniser claims.
Amazing that some people here thinks they have more knowledge about the subject than a former president of a billionaire company advised by a massive legal department… Gaf never fails
So circular logic?
No, is a random guy opinion vs a legal team advice of a billionaire company. Is simple logic.
As i already said, Amazon wants a discount that was off the books. Amazon is asking Nintendo to offer a sell price that is recorded, and then give Amazon money separately that would thus lower the amount they paid but not in the original transaction. there is no reason to do this other than fraud. If you ask for a discount you would say it. You don't ask for money you give them to be partially paid back to you as a gift.
Your argument is just circular reasoning, sorry.
Why does Nintendo give Amazon money? I'm not understanding the alleged scheme very well. I don't see that in the source either but even if true wouldn't that just be fraud.
How did Reggie ever get the job over you? Damn you know everything.
It's because I didn't apply
