So your thesis is that diaper customers, who have already banked $100 million in savings by shopping smart and buying from the cheapest guy in town, will in the future continue to buy diapers from Amazon even though Amazon has jacked prices up beyond those of Costco, Target, and plenty of other companies.

No, I don't assume that Amazon's prices need to be higher than Target, Costco, etc. Importantly this is more about diapers. Amazon started as a bookstore. Amazon wanted to undermine Quidsi's growth as an online retailer, not just a seller of diapers. By killing their advantage, they could hobble their ability to get a foothold in the space. Before selling the diapers at a loss, Bezos made an offer to buy diapers.com. They refused, so Amazon undercut their prices at a loss. A year later, Amazon bought Quidsi.

By using this tactic, Quidsi became part of Amazon's portfolio, rather than a competitor.

BTW, I own stock in Amazon. I think they have a lot more competition to devour.

By the way, you were probably supposed to pay tax on those purchases.

Perhaps, but we don't, and that's what matters to Amazon. -I'm just saying that Amazon has an advantage (6% in Michigan) over brick-and-mortar retailers. But as I said, I don't think this was just a matter of where customers get diapers. Amazon is protecting a much bigger space. I'm not sure the judge saw that clearly.