I think there is a meaningful difference as of yesterday. It now looks like Biden will have a cooperative Democratic controlled senate, because of the Georgia results.
Probably a dumb question, but are the disclosures only available to the government (federal?), or will the disclosures be available to the general public (and litigious lawyers) too?
I can find nothing in the bill that guarantees this, nor provides for any penalty for unauthorized disclosure. Am I missing something you can direct me to?
I can state that in practice, in attempting to social engineer my own legally protected information from banks and local government I have had nearly 100% success rate in obtaining it. The only solution is to not give them access to the data in the first place.
If this information is available 'only to law enforcement' as some have suggested here, that often means that essentially any law enforcement anywhere in the country for any reason. If you don't know someone who can look up tags for you, or addresses off drivers licenses ... you need to get out more. That level of protection is better than nothing, but it isn't particularly protected.
Yes, it keeps randoms out. Be careful asking friends in law enforcement to look something up for you. Requests are logged. And if another law enforcement group has an alert set, you will get a visit asking why you were asking.
It's one thing to see that unbleached toilet paper is selling well, and getting a supplier to sell you a store brand version. But it's completely different to see that a particular office stand is selling very well, determine that it has a 20% margin, and have someone build an identical product which you sell 5% margin.
If you look at many Amazon Basics products, they are clear ripoffs of existing products. To the point where they are indistinguishable from the images. I was looking for a Lodge braisier just yesterday and saw that AB produced an identical product, down to the unique blue color Lodge uses in their enamel.
I guess you could go through the trouble of suing Amazon, assuming you had the resources. But then you'd be booted from the platform and they'd still be selling your knockoffs for years.
I think it's fine if Amazon sees that cast iron cookware is selling well and decides to enter that market. What's not fine is to blatantly steal the design of the best selling product in a category, then make your ripoff more visible on your site. At least make an attempt to differentiate the product.
> "It's one thing to see that unbleached toilet paper is selling well, and getting a supplier to sell you a store brand version. But it's completely different to see that a particular office stand is selling very well, determine that it has a 20% margin, and have someone build an identical product which you sell 5% margin."
Those two sound like the exact same thing to me. There is no real difference.
It even happens between electronics manufacturers; you'll see a company noticing a competitor's product is successful, dissecting it to figure out the manufacturing costs and estimated margin, and tailoring its product line to provide a competitive product.
(Aside from all that, I though HNers didn't believe in IP?)
Well, you can patent or trademark designs. And our legal system protects the holder of those patents and trademarks for good reason. Amazon is able to leverage their position in the market to abuse suppliers and get away with illegal behavior because the suppliers lack the resources to fight Amazon.
There's a difference between a clean room design that takes inspiration from a product and an identical copy. I can write and perform a song in the style of The Beatles, but I cannot write and perform "Hey Jude" without paying royalties.
A. Amazon doesn't know what seller margins are. They can't because they have no insight into what sellers pay for the products, only what the products sell for.
B. The main reason that products, in general, look alike is because they're all being produced at the same 3 factories in China. And for lots of products, there's no reason to deviate significantly from the house design that the factory offers.
A. They absolutely do. There are plenty of companies out there that will analyze a product, describe how they believe it is made, and produce a cost break down to the penny. They will go so far as to measure the thickness of the paint used.
B. I used Lodge as an example because I know they make their own products in the US and they do not produce generics. Ergo, I'm quit confident Amazon ripped them off.
Of course, Amazon has been sued over this before [1] [2] [3]. Is three references lawsuits enough evidence for you, or should I dig up some more? And there are many reports of them ripping off vendor products, as I described, from smaller vendors who never sue because they lack the means [4].
Finally, here's evidence from a former Amazon employee claiming they do exactly what I said they do. [5]
In what way does Amazon know the backend margins that any other store wouldn’t?
They don’t. Amazon isn’t being asked to produce a product for a vendor then taking that and selling it themselves, that would be wrong. This is Amazon doing exactly what other stores do, seeing what sells well and making their own version.
I suspect that's more coordinated - you get the own brand which is generally cheap and cheerful, then the premium brands. I suspect there's some oversight there though.
I think the real question to ask is whether or not Amazon has a monopoly and whether they are abusing it to gain an unfair advantage over the producers of the stuff they sell. I mean when you mention other stores, I don't know if you mean this but I'm picturing e.g. a grocery store - where I come from there's usually three competing ones in the neighbourhood. They will all sell products from a premium brand, alongside their own (cheaper) store brand. But the premium brand is usually available at all competitors at similar prices.
But then you'd have to boycott some of the most loved US brands in history! Surely you wouldn't want to harm THEM? Just because they gave china so much money to become a world power doesn't make THEM part of the problem, right? Have a heart! You wouldn't want to possibly impact the retirement plans of those dearly loved brand CEO's would you? Naaaa.
Are there any estimates about releasing this technology for general use? Or does the (US) FDA insist on slowing down this type of diagnostic technology a few decades, or can we expect to see these as kiosks in every clinic over the next few months?
You don't seem to understand the actual problems with screening. Try learning about the field before implying the FDA isn't doing their job: https://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.h6080
at the moment they are essentially saying it's a promising tech that helps experts and cuts down on their errors. It helps with one part of the analysis. Looks like it is a long way from anything general use, though it's on the path towards that.
