On the capitalism debate- and this is in the interest of economics, not argument
They are still on Amazon (sporadically) and people were buying them up until the time the deal expired. I'm not entirely sure why--perhaps someone had to cancel an order, perhaps Amazon updated their stock--regardless, I think most of those who were dedicated enough ("stood in line" so to speak) were able to get them by refreshing the page until a pair was a available. I was writing a paper two nights ago with the window auto-refreshing and managed to snatch a pair, and I know others who did the same.
For everyone else, the people who snatched a pair now have plenty extras and can pass the deal on. Will they make a profit? Sure, but keep in mind that they have to go through the hassle of filling out the rebate and such. Furthermore, we don't know how the potential price war will play out. If 10 people each ordered 10 headphones to resell, that's 100 headphones that will be flooding the market in a few weeks, and that could drive prices down quite a bit. No promises, but shortly after Christmas I wouldn't be surprised to see them reselling on the Amazon marketplace for under $150.
Finally, you've got to look at who's to blame here. The "douchebags" who snatched them up to resell were taking advantage of an opportunity that was presented to them by Amazon/Logitech. If they didn't take advantage of it someone else would've. Amazon, on the other hand, could've easily put a cap on the deal, limiting people to 1, 2, or 3 pair (in fact the Logitech rebate is limited to 3 pair). Their motivation was not fairness so much as selling a bunch of headphones. Sure, they'd prefer that the deal reach as wide an audience as possible in the interest of fairness, but their own profit motive took priority over what an outside observer may (or may not) consider fair. Do you blame the person who took advantage of the deal in a competitive market (knowing that someone else would've) or the only part of the chain that could've put a stop to it?
