There has never been a grocery store that has had the logistical dominance that Amazon does right now. In fact, for much of the 20th century, retail and wholesale distribution operations were legally obligated to be owned by distinct entities under anti-trust law, specifically to prevent the emergence of a combination like what we see now with Amazon.

This is not a one-off for Amazon. New products need to sell through Amazon to get access to consumers without paying through the nose for that access; they can't be cost-competitive otherwise (close parallel here to the SO monopoly). Amazon frequently cherry-picks the most successful new products that they think they can manufacture themselves.

This is bad for innovation in the consumer products space, because it kills the incentive that independent entrepreneurs have to innovate. Why innovate if Amazon is going to capture all your profits once you are successful? What branded grocery-store products ever face the same quandary due to the existence of similar white-label products being sold in the same store?

In an environment where anti-trust principles were being enforced against Amazon, they would have listed the original product under the "camera bag" headline, increasing their sales, instead of stealing their concept and making it harder for them to build a sustainable business.