Amazon and Toys "R" Us don't like each other anymore, and Mylene Mangalindan (WSJ) is tracking the dispute as it plays out in the courts of New Jersey. In the summer of 2000, the two companies agreed upon what was then an innovative arrangement where Amazon would essentially sell some of the toy store's inventory through its website. How'd the deal fall apart? Mangalindan breaks it down succintly: "Toys 'R' Us alleges Amazon violated its promise that Toys would be the sole seller of toys, games and baby products on Amazon's Web site. Amazon claims Toys failed to deliver on its promise to maintain a certain selection of toys." She notes that Amazon further claims "Toys has a different interpretation of what 'exclusivity' means," which seems a rather Clintonian defense until you look at the more detailed explanation: "[Toys] believed it had the exclusive right to sell products in the entire toys and baby categories. Amazon interpreted Toys' exclusive right as applicable to those toy and baby products that Toys was selling, leaving other merchants or Amazon the right to sell products that Toys wasn't selling."

But here's my question: What's up with that WSJ portrait of Jeff Bezos (right)? I mean, I worked with the guy for nearly two years, and admittedly, it's been a while since I last saw him, but his neck didn't strike me as elongated and turned like a tortoise, nor did his cheeks seem that baggy. A picture like this seems even meaner in some ways than those André Carrilho caricatures in the NYTBR...