Amazon founder Jeff Bezos calls for governments to end patent wars(metro.co.uk)
metro.co.uk
Amazon founder Jeff Bezos calls for governments to end patent wars
http://www.metro.co.uk/tech/915146-amazon-founder-jeff-bezos-calls-for-governments-to-end-patent-wars
22 comments
I hate it when people bring up the logical fallacies in incorrect contexts. The fallacies apply to purely logical arguments. They do not apply to arguments, like Bezos's, that are based on a mix of logic and credibility.
The argument against software patents does not go "if A then B, if B then C, therefore if A then C." In this context, labeling someone a hypocrite is indeed not logically relevant. Instead, the argument against software patents is couched at least in part on empirical evidence: we need to reform the system because it holds back innovation, as can be seen from X, Y, and Z observations. In that context, credibility is relevant. Why should we believe you that you're accurately representing X, Y, and Z? Does self-interest color how you're characterizing the patent reform argument? All of these are relevant because it's not a purely logical argument that can be evaluated purely on its own merits.
The argument against software patents does not go "if A then B, if B then C, therefore if A then C." In this context, labeling someone a hypocrite is indeed not logically relevant. Instead, the argument against software patents is couched at least in part on empirical evidence: we need to reform the system because it holds back innovation, as can be seen from X, Y, and Z observations. In that context, credibility is relevant. Why should we believe you that you're accurately representing X, Y, and Z? Does self-interest color how you're characterizing the patent reform argument? All of these are relevant because it's not a purely logical argument that can be evaluated purely on its own merits.
When I play by a game, I use all the rules to my advantage even if I support a change to some of those rules. If I could legally vote twice because I had a college degree, I would -- even though I would support repealing such a rule. Here, we see AMZN maximizing shareholder value (which it MUST do,) and wee see Jeff Bezos suggest that some of the common rules of the game aren't optimal.
Think of the Buffet position on taxes -- he is going to pay as little as he has to, but he wishes everybody in his peer group paid more. He could just give his money to the government, but that is a categorically different action from lobbying for a systematic change.
Think of the Buffet position on taxes -- he is going to pay as little as he has to, but he wishes everybody in his peer group paid more. He could just give his money to the government, but that is a categorically different action from lobbying for a systematic change.
Helmets were optional in the NHL before they became mandatory. Supposedly, almost nobody wore them beforehand (because it impacted performance), but virtually all players supported making them mandatory.
Classic game theory.
> which it MUST do
Nope, as far as I am aware there is no law that companies must maximize the value for their owners at the cost of all other considerations. This gets brought up constantly, and I've yet to see anyone support the claim with evidence. Sure, you can sue for breach of fiduciary duty, but that duty does not include no-holds-barred maximization.
Nope, as far as I am aware there is no law that companies must maximize the value for their owners at the cost of all other considerations. This gets brought up constantly, and I've yet to see anyone support the claim with evidence. Sure, you can sue for breach of fiduciary duty, but that duty does not include no-holds-barred maximization.
There is no such law, and it's never been a fiduciary duty.
There is one common law school case where a court smacked down Henry Ford for saying he didn't care about shareholders, just his workers, but that's because it was the Dodge brothers bringing suit and Henry Ford was being a huge dick. That case wasn't really a correct statement of the law even at the time.
There is one common law school case where a court smacked down Henry Ford for saying he didn't care about shareholders, just his workers, but that's because it was the Dodge brothers bringing suit and Henry Ford was being a huge dick. That case wasn't really a correct statement of the law even at the time.
>Sure, you can sue for breach of fiduciary duty, but that duty does not include no-holds-barred maximization.
That depends on what you mean by "no-holds-barred". If the company is giving up potential income they had better be able to explain the reason, otherwise it is a breach of fiduciary duty. Of course they're not allowed to do anything illegal, and you can probably get away with saying "this would give us bad PR". But "we don't enforce our patents because we think patents are stupid" is definitely a breach of fiduciary duty.
See here:
http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/sp...
That depends on what you mean by "no-holds-barred". If the company is giving up potential income they had better be able to explain the reason, otherwise it is a breach of fiduciary duty. Of course they're not allowed to do anything illegal, and you can probably get away with saying "this would give us bad PR". But "we don't enforce our patents because we think patents are stupid" is definitely a breach of fiduciary duty.
See here:
http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/sp...
Managers have extremely wide latitude under the law to run the business as they see fit. As long as they have some hazy explanation as to how their actions could plausibly be for the benefit of shareholders, then they can do as they please. If shareholders don't like that, they can fire the managers. For example, Bezos could certainly say, "We think patents are stupid, as do many of our key customers, potential acquisition targets, and employees we'd like to hire." That could all be hogwash, but as long as he says it with a straight face on the witness stand, I don't believe he can successfully be sued personally.
The only reason eBay v Newmark exists as a case is that the managers are also the majority shareholders, which introduces a conflict of interest. (Well, that and the fact that eBay are dicks who were trying to fuck with a key competitor.) It's a weird case, and that decision has no practical implication for Bezos.
That bit from the decision comes up in regards to complicated stock shenanigans designed to keep eBay from getting more CL stock. The principle isn't being applied to ordinary management decisions, just decisions about stock ownership and board seats. So even if this decision did mean something for Bezos, it wouldn't mean anything about him deciding not to enforce patents.
The only reason eBay v Newmark exists as a case is that the managers are also the majority shareholders, which introduces a conflict of interest. (Well, that and the fact that eBay are dicks who were trying to fuck with a key competitor.) It's a weird case, and that decision has no practical implication for Bezos.
That bit from the decision comes up in regards to complicated stock shenanigans designed to keep eBay from getting more CL stock. The principle isn't being applied to ordinary management decisions, just decisions about stock ownership and board seats. So even if this decision did mean something for Bezos, it wouldn't mean anything about him deciding not to enforce patents.
Somebody else already cited this, and I don't think it proves what you think it proves. In this case, Craig and Jim were sued because they were actively attempting to diminish eBay's share value. In my inexpert opinion, it is not analogous to failing to enforce dubious patents. At any rate, the odds that Amazon would actually have been sued for failing to enforce one-click strike me as incredibly low.
IANAL, but I believe that you are correct, the corporation must pursue its shareholder interests for the purposes outlined in its articles of incorporation. That can be (afaik) any legal purpose. AMZN has repeatedly communicated their purpose of maximizing long-term shareholder value.
> AMZN has repeatedly communicated their purpose of maximizing long-term shareholder value
Even that doesn't pin them down. Amazon can easily say they believe it is in their own long term interests to campaign against patent laws and therefore sacrificing a small short term profit from the one-click patent is a logically correct way to maximize long term shareholder value. The argument that a company "has to do evil thing X" to maximize shareholder value is pretty much always just an excuse for avoiding argument about whether "thing X" is evil or not.
Even that doesn't pin them down. Amazon can easily say they believe it is in their own long term interests to campaign against patent laws and therefore sacrificing a small short term profit from the one-click patent is a logically correct way to maximize long term shareholder value. The argument that a company "has to do evil thing X" to maximize shareholder value is pretty much always just an excuse for avoiding argument about whether "thing X" is evil or not.
I am not a lawyer but it would seem that the ebay v. craigslist ruling would have the same effect.
http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/sp...
http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/sp...
If you read the decision, it seems that it is not really about shareholder maximization as we are discussing here. Instead, Jim and Craig actively worked to minimize the value of eBay's shares. Also, the very article you cite discusses a few ways in which companies can fail to perfectly maximize profits yet still stay on the correct side of the law. One example is philanthropy.
Except corporate philanthropy has limits. If the CEO of Exxon decided to donate 50% of all profits to philanthropy you can bet there would be a host of successful lawsuits.
If on the other hand a company's charter stats that 50% of all profits are donated to charity before it goes public then you your unlikely to successively sue them for continuing to do so.
If on the other hand a company's charter stats that 50% of all profits are donated to charity before it goes public then you your unlikely to successively sue them for continuing to do so.
On the third hand, extreme examples might not be relevant to a more minor tweak of profits like suing or not suing over one-click. If it's a matter of degrees, degrees matter.
True, enough. There are plenty of company's like IBM where giving up patent revenue without changes to the patent system would heavily impact there profits. However, IBM has donated a fair number of patents in the past.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/11/technology/11soft.html
Along massive quantities of data. http://depth-first.com/articles/2011/12/15/ibm-donates-large...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/11/technology/11soft.html
Along massive quantities of data. http://depth-first.com/articles/2011/12/15/ibm-donates-large...
When I play by a game, I use all the rules to my advantage even if I support a change to some of those rules.
That's the very definition of hypocrisy, which is what Bezos is being called of. One can be a hypocrite and still be right.
That's the very definition of hypocrisy, which is what Bezos is being called of. One can be a hypocrite and still be right.
No. Being a hypocrite would be telling other players not to take advantage of the rules while you take advantage of the rules. Advocating for change while still trying to win within the current rules is not.
Yes it is.
Hypocrisy is the state of promoting or administering virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have or is also guilty of violating.
Wikipedia
Hypocrisy is the state of promoting or administering virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have or is also guilty of violating.
Wikipedia
By your own definition it isn't hypocrisy. You are confusing virtues, morals, principles, and beliefs with rules. They aren't the same thing and shouldn't be conflated.
The argument could be made that patents are not a moral issue but an issue concerning efficient economics. Under that argument reforming patents is about making an industry more productive and useful. This can happen in two dimensions. A single business could benefit. An entire economy could benefit. A leader of a company could view the patent system like this:
My company right now can make the most money currently by registering, buying, and enforcing patents. However if the patent system were reformed we could reduce costs, legal risks and make even more money than we do now. Therefore I will lobby for patent reform. While still doing what I need to be successful as a company now.
The argument could be made that patents are not a moral issue but an issue concerning efficient economics. Under that argument reforming patents is about making an industry more productive and useful. This can happen in two dimensions. A single business could benefit. An entire economy could benefit. A leader of a company could view the patent system like this:
My company right now can make the most money currently by registering, buying, and enforcing patents. However if the patent system were reformed we could reduce costs, legal risks and make even more money than we do now. Therefore I will lobby for patent reform. While still doing what I need to be successful as a company now.
I'm not confusing. The original comment was:
If I could legally vote twice because I had a college degree, I would -- even though I would support repealing such a rule.
That's doing in practice the opposite of what you believe, promoting a principle that one is also guilty of violating.
It's also unethical in my view. The ends do not justify the means.
If I could legally vote twice because I had a college degree, I would -- even though I would support repealing such a rule.
That's doing in practice the opposite of what you believe, promoting a principle that one is also guilty of violating.
It's also unethical in my view. The ends do not justify the means.
It would be hypocritical to say "Everyone should voluntarily not use their special rights to vote twice" and then vote twice. It's not hypocritical to say "The law should be changed" and then go vote twice.
As in, there is no contradiction or hypocrisy if someone explicitly states their ordered preferences like this:
1) The law states that everyone gets one vote, I vote once.
2) The law states that college grads get two votes, I vote twice.
3) The law states that college grads get two votes, I vote once.
Jeff Bezos isn't opposing patents on moral grounds; he thinks that there would be economic benefit to everyone, including his company, to get rid of them. It would be of economic benefit to only everyone but Amazon if only Amazon abstained from having patents.
As in, there is no contradiction or hypocrisy if someone explicitly states their ordered preferences like this:
1) The law states that everyone gets one vote, I vote once.
2) The law states that college grads get two votes, I vote twice.
3) The law states that college grads get two votes, I vote once.
Jeff Bezos isn't opposing patents on moral grounds; he thinks that there would be economic benefit to everyone, including his company, to get rid of them. It would be of economic benefit to only everyone but Amazon if only Amazon abstained from having patents.
Saying you would use the rules to your advantage even though you disagree with them is very much hypocritical.
You may not agree with Wikipedia's definition of hypocrisy. That's fine, find another. But practicing the opposite of what you believe fits it perfectly.
You may not agree with Wikipedia's definition of hypocrisy. That's fine, find another. But practicing the opposite of what you believe fits it perfectly.
Didn't realize skulls could be so thick. This tangent on defining hypocrisy belongs somewhere else.
He's not doing something other than what he believes in if he has a more nuanced belief that you seem willing to allow.
Think about this in terms of a Nash Equilibrium. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium The classic case being rules that adjust for Free rider problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem
Basically, if you want to maximize the expected value of fish you catch your going to fish to the limit of your capabilities. It would also be perfectly rational to suggest instituting catch limits with vary large penalties. After the rule change you may be perfectly happy to obey them because they make you more money for less effort and breaking them is not worth the risk. Note, a lot of environmental preservation is rational it's voluntary environmentalism that's often irrational behavior.
Basically, if you want to maximize the expected value of fish you catch your going to fish to the limit of your capabilities. It would also be perfectly rational to suggest instituting catch limits with vary large penalties. After the rule change you may be perfectly happy to obey them because they make you more money for less effort and breaking them is not worth the risk. Note, a lot of environmental preservation is rational it's voluntary environmentalism that's often irrational behavior.
It depends on how you see ethics.
The Categorical Imperative (act only according to that maxim by which you can also will that it would become a universal law) suggests it is hypocritical - if it's bad for everyone to do it, it's bad for anyone to do it. Of course, not everyone agrees with Kant.
But that's not the only way to view ethics. More pragmatic people would say - "Sometimes the game is broken, and you have to do things which feel a bit wrong. That doesn't mean you can't advocate for the rules to be changed, though".
I don't think you can say he's a total hypocrite. He's not suggesting that all his competitors virtuously refrain from abusing patents, while he himself is abusing them. I don't see any real dishonesty or inconsistency.
The Categorical Imperative (act only according to that maxim by which you can also will that it would become a universal law) suggests it is hypocritical - if it's bad for everyone to do it, it's bad for anyone to do it. Of course, not everyone agrees with Kant.
But that's not the only way to view ethics. More pragmatic people would say - "Sometimes the game is broken, and you have to do things which feel a bit wrong. That doesn't mean you can't advocate for the rules to be changed, though".
I don't think you can say he's a total hypocrite. He's not suggesting that all his competitors virtuously refrain from abusing patents, while he himself is abusing them. I don't see any real dishonesty or inconsistency.
Yet the idea that hypocrisy is a good reason to ignore a man's arguments wholesale is broken either way.
But yes, Bezos cannot be assumed to be without self-interests. Nor can the (former) patent lawyers sitting on patent courts.
But yes, Bezos cannot be assumed to be without self-interests. Nor can the (former) patent lawyers sitting on patent courts.
I'm just pointing out the difference between arguments in the Platonic sense and real world arguments. Credibility is never an issue in a logical argument, but there are very few real world arguments in which credibility isn't an issue. A number of the logical fallacies, like ad hominem and tu coque go straight to credibility.
That's not a reason to ignore the argument of a hypocrite. It is a reason not to ignore credibility as an important factor because of a misguided application of fallacies.
That's not a reason to ignore the argument of a hypocrite. It is a reason not to ignore credibility as an important factor because of a misguided application of fallacies.
No matter how credible you may think he is, he is still right.
> Yet the idea that hypocrisy is a good reason to ignore a man's arguments wholesale is broken either way.
That is true, but this fact also considerably reduces the weight of the argument coming from him. There are several people talking either against or in favor of patents. Why would I listen to someone that is (or that I suspect to be) biased?
That is true, but this fact also considerably reduces the weight of the argument coming from him. There are several people talking either against or in favor of patents. Why would I listen to someone that is (or that I suspect to be) biased?
Why? Unless he's arguing on the basis of authority ("I say so!"), reasoning is reasoning, regardless of whose mouth it comes from. If his reasoning holds up, what basis is there for giving it less "weight"?
If you think the arguer is biased against the position being argued for, that's maybe grounds for suspicion that the reasoning is flawed in some (perhaps subtle) way—but suspicion when listening to arguments is always a good thing.
Anyway, as has been pointed out elsewhere in the comments, his position isn't actually inconsistent: it's perfectly rational for him to think that a system where all parties are equally prohibited from certain abusive actions is better for him than the system where they aren't, even if he's participated in the abuse in the past. He may very well have come to the conclusion that he loses more from the abuses of others than he gains from abuses of his own. [The "hockey-helmet" example someone gave is a good illustration, I think.]
If you think the arguer is biased against the position being argued for, that's maybe grounds for suspicion that the reasoning is flawed in some (perhaps subtle) way—but suspicion when listening to arguments is always a good thing.
Anyway, as has been pointed out elsewhere in the comments, his position isn't actually inconsistent: it's perfectly rational for him to think that a system where all parties are equally prohibited from certain abusive actions is better for him than the system where they aren't, even if he's participated in the abuse in the past. He may very well have come to the conclusion that he loses more from the abuses of others than he gains from abuses of his own. [The "hockey-helmet" example someone gave is a good illustration, I think.]
Since he is allegedly hypocritical, shouldn't he be biased in favor of patents?
If this were Stallman speaking out, I wouldn't think it was news-worthy.
If this were Stallman speaking out, I wouldn't think it was news-worthy.
The logical fallacy is still relevant. The idea that only the sinless should cast stones against the patent system is limiting and flawed. Indeed, the fact that someone who has used the patent system to their advantage (fairly or otherwise) and yet still calls for massive changes to the system is, I think, even more important than someone "outside" the patent system calling for changes.
There isn't anything wrong with bringing up the hypocrisy, I just see many people dismissing his point. He isn't wrong to say we should reform patents. Even if he has some ulterior motive it doesn't make his point not valid. You can mark his credibility and therefore assume his desire to change the patent system is neither credible nor real. This doesn't change the argument itself.
Also, I would also like to point out I hate the conflating of CEOs with companies. Jeff Bezos isn't Amazon. He sits at the helm, but there are literally thousands of people who work for him who make independent decisions everyday.
Also, I would also like to point out I hate the conflating of CEOs with companies. Jeff Bezos isn't Amazon. He sits at the helm, but there are literally thousands of people who work for him who make independent decisions everyday.
> I hate it when people bring up the logical fallacies in incorrect contexts.
Yes, it's like trying to apply set theory in a discussion of whether dogs constitute a separate species. Misapplication of mathematics in inappropriate contexts doesn't make you smart. It makes you obtuse. (Queue Trigonometry jokes!)
Yes, it's like trying to apply set theory in a discussion of whether dogs constitute a separate species. Misapplication of mathematics in inappropriate contexts doesn't make you smart. It makes you obtuse. (Queue Trigonometry jokes!)
More simply - Bezos isn't saying you shouldn't get a patent, and use it. He's saying you shouldn't be able to get certain types of patents.
He's not calling his competitors unethical for using patents against him. He's saying the game is at fault, not the players.
He's not calling his competitors unethical for using patents against him. He's saying the game is at fault, not the players.
In this instance, I think Amazon's past transgressions make Bezos' argument more credible, not less. Amazon is a poster-child for successfully and profitably abusing the patent system by getting a trivial patent. If even they are willing to turn around and say the system is broken, then the breakage must be severe and obvious.
I feel like the distinction between formal and informal fallacies negates the assertion that "tu quoque" would be in an incorrect context here.
I may definitely be wrong but that's my current understanding.
I may definitely be wrong but that's my current understanding.
The formal fallacies are errors in deductive reasoning. The informal fallacies are errors in inductive (statistical) reasoning. Bezos's argument is neither.
There's no hypocrisy here. It's perfectly moral to ask a saloon's owner to ban guns, even if you currently carry one for protection from the other patrons.
You are making a mistake equating calling out hypocrisy with the implication of incorrectness. Nobody is saying he's wrong--they are pointing out hypocrisy.
Listen, I don't care whether Bezos is correct. I know what's right and I don't need to hear Bezos confirming it.
He has transgressed and left a lasting scar in the tech industry. Amazon's "one-click patent" is a household word for "dirty" and "predatory" in the tech world. Bezos needs to at the very least express regret. Better yet, he needs to denounce his earlier one-click patent as absurd, and then license it freely to everyone. Actions speak louder than words.
This is why people are so dismissive of his arguments. He is right, but many of us will never take him seriously.
Listen, I don't care whether Bezos is correct. I know what's right and I don't need to hear Bezos confirming it.
He has transgressed and left a lasting scar in the tech industry. Amazon's "one-click patent" is a household word for "dirty" and "predatory" in the tech world. Bezos needs to at the very least express regret. Better yet, he needs to denounce his earlier one-click patent as absurd, and then license it freely to everyone. Actions speak louder than words.
This is why people are so dismissive of his arguments. He is right, but many of us will never take him seriously.
When a system is wrong, applying it strictly is often a good way to fight it. The "one click patent" has been useful to demonstrate the absurdity of patent and may have help to kill all patents.
That is fine, but it is a flaw on your part to not listen to good arguments. Good arguments can be made by the worst of people.
The argument isn't the news here. We were all familiar with Bezos' argument before reading this article (and most of us already agreed with the argument). The reason this is newsworthy is that it is coming from Bezos.
He might as well say "I agree with A." Whatever your prior feelings about A, the statement is only informative to the extent you care which side Bezos is on.
That said, to the extent his credibility influences anyone, I'm glad to see he's speaking out.
He might as well say "I agree with A." Whatever your prior feelings about A, the statement is only informative to the extent you care which side Bezos is on.
That said, to the extent his credibility influences anyone, I'm glad to see he's speaking out.
Companies have already done this and it has done nothing to change the patent system, unsurprisingly. I'm sure Amazon will license the one-click patent for free if Apple releases the "slide to unlock" patent, despite the fact that placing orders safely with 1 click is a much more involved technical process than a simple GUI element.
> is a strawman by the name of tu quoque
I think you mean "logical fallacy", not "strawman". Strawman is another, unrelated logical fallacy.
I think you mean "logical fallacy", not "strawman". Strawman is another, unrelated logical fallacy.
Ah, you may be right. I've always heard it described as a kind of straw man because you are discrediting an argument by discrediting your opponent in a specific way.
That's probably ad hominem you're thinking of. "Straw man" is probably best described as putting words in someone's mouth - it's when you attack an argument that your opponent hasn't actually made instead of attacking their actual arguments.
Fallacyfiles.org is a really good resource for this stuff as well as wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Logical_fallacies
Anyway I hope I'm not being too pedantic. I think logical fallacies are like programming anti-patterns - the terminology's less important than being familiar with the sketchy patterns so you can sniff them out.
Fallacyfiles.org is a really good resource for this stuff as well as wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Logical_fallacies
Anyway I hope I'm not being too pedantic. I think logical fallacies are like programming anti-patterns - the terminology's less important than being familiar with the sketchy patterns so you can sniff them out.
+1, Playing by the rules of a broken game does not make you less credible when you say the rules need fixed.
> This is a non-argument. Being a hypocrite doesn't make you less correct.
I don't think people are attacking the argument. They are attacking him, personally, for being a hypocrite.
I don't think people are attacking the argument. They are attacking him, personally, for being a hypocrite.
> Being a hypocrite doesn't make you less correct.
:-)
:-)
Yes, maybe Bezos is a hypocrite. His company has a history of abusing the patent system and he's now realizing that software patents are a Bad Thing because he's just about to get on the receiving side of them [0]. So what?
Even if he doesn't have the moral high ground, it doesn't change that he's right. And that's a good thing; it's better to have one hypocrite in power with ability to change things for good, even if he does it for selfish reasons, than to have one hundred morally pure [1] people who don't have the power or means to do anything else than whine. Google, Amazon, and others may not be white like snow, but they would serve good as temporary allies in fixing things for everyone.
</rant>
(In general, I hate when people throw around the label of 'hypocrite'; quite often it's just an distracting ad hominem.)
[0] - but hey, "it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." (Upton Sinclair)
[1] - then again, how many of us are really so innocent? How many would stand to principle if offered a chance to patent some silly software "invention" and thus speed up career development?
Even if he doesn't have the moral high ground, it doesn't change that he's right. And that's a good thing; it's better to have one hypocrite in power with ability to change things for good, even if he does it for selfish reasons, than to have one hundred morally pure [1] people who don't have the power or means to do anything else than whine. Google, Amazon, and others may not be white like snow, but they would serve good as temporary allies in fixing things for everyone.
</rant>
(In general, I hate when people throw around the label of 'hypocrite'; quite often it's just an distracting ad hominem.)
[0] - but hey, "it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." (Upton Sinclair)
[1] - then again, how many of us are really so innocent? How many would stand to principle if offered a chance to patent some silly software "invention" and thus speed up career development?
To anyone curious about the actual transgression, here is the WP article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click#cite_note-16
The FSF called for a boycott of Amazon once but then reverted its decision: http://web.archive.org/web/20081121093238/http://www.gnu.org...
The FSF called for a boycott of Amazon once but then reverted its decision: http://web.archive.org/web/20081121093238/http://www.gnu.org...
How ironic given the first ridiculous software patent I remember was Amazon's one-click purchase patent that it use as a cudgel against many e-tailers in the late nineties (and may still, for all I know).
EDIT: Not saying there weren't other ridiculous software patents; just that this one got a lot of press at the time and brought software patents to developers attention in a way that hadn't happened before.
EDIT: Not saying there weren't other ridiculous software patents; just that this one got a lot of press at the time and brought software patents to developers attention in a way that hadn't happened before.
I think we all would love to see an end to patent threats in software not so much for the sake of the big players but for the sake of small businesses attempting to bring a product to life. If it took Amazon to make it happen then great. Heck, if Steve Ballmer brought an end to software patents I'd be thrilled.
Whatever ill will Amazon created amongst the technorati more than a decade ago pales now in comparison to Ballmer's inept continuation of Microsoft and the post-iPhone Apple walled garden and patent actions. Less obvious but significant are the erosions to privacy brought on with the help of Google. I vote Jeff Bezos "least evil" at this moment. Someone I know even said he was a "nice guy." Small sample, yes.
I'm not particularly hopeful that we'll see meaningful legal reform in software patents. There is too much money to be made by lawyers in filing and litigation. Their brethren in government making the laws are't going to one day just shut down this little parasitic industry that feeds many of their friends and likely contributors.
Until then, where's the most troll-free place from which to conduct a software business? Black and white immunity is not necessary, just a not-worth-the-effort situation for trolls??
Whatever ill will Amazon created amongst the technorati more than a decade ago pales now in comparison to Ballmer's inept continuation of Microsoft and the post-iPhone Apple walled garden and patent actions. Less obvious but significant are the erosions to privacy brought on with the help of Google. I vote Jeff Bezos "least evil" at this moment. Someone I know even said he was a "nice guy." Small sample, yes.
I'm not particularly hopeful that we'll see meaningful legal reform in software patents. There is too much money to be made by lawyers in filing and litigation. Their brethren in government making the laws are't going to one day just shut down this little parasitic industry that feeds many of their friends and likely contributors.
Until then, where's the most troll-free place from which to conduct a software business? Black and white immunity is not necessary, just a not-worth-the-effort situation for trolls??
Why is he a hypocrite?
To exist as a tech company today, you'd be insane to NOT patent as much as possible. Seriously, if you're developing tech to compete with Apple (or any large tech co), but have no IP of your own, you're defenseless. Thats the impression I get, anyways - that you're best bet is to patent as much as possible. The more vague, the more absurd, the better. It offers more bargaining chips. Because lets face it - can a non multi-million dollar company survive a couple of lawsuits by one of the tech giants? I doubt it.
Patent warfare is a systematic issue; its not unreasonable to attack the system (Gov't sponsored patents). That's what I take from this message. I'm sure there's a Game Theory term for this, but its clearly not something that can be resolved outside of the system. Anyone who stops the lawsuits (or threat of) quickly disappears.
To exist as a tech company today, you'd be insane to NOT patent as much as possible. Seriously, if you're developing tech to compete with Apple (or any large tech co), but have no IP of your own, you're defenseless. Thats the impression I get, anyways - that you're best bet is to patent as much as possible. The more vague, the more absurd, the better. It offers more bargaining chips. Because lets face it - can a non multi-million dollar company survive a couple of lawsuits by one of the tech giants? I doubt it.
Patent warfare is a systematic issue; its not unreasonable to attack the system (Gov't sponsored patents). That's what I take from this message. I'm sure there's a Game Theory term for this, but its clearly not something that can be resolved outside of the system. Anyone who stops the lawsuits (or threat of) quickly disappears.
>To exist as a tech company today, you'd be insane to NOT patent as much as possible.
Patent holders are not required to actively defend patents in order to maintain their rights to them. That's only trademarks.
Amazon has a history of not just filing patents of questionable validity, they have a history of going after competitors for infringement. The most obvious example would be suing Barnes & Noble over the One-Click patent.
Patent holders are not required to actively defend patents in order to maintain their rights to them. That's only trademarks.
Amazon has a history of not just filing patents of questionable validity, they have a history of going after competitors for infringement. The most obvious example would be suing Barnes & Noble over the One-Click patent.
I look forward to Bezos matching his words with actions.
It's pretty well known that Amazon's lobbying in DC is entirely focused on preventing Amazon from having to pay state sales taxes. Bezos has never lifted a finger to help any other tech cause -- note that Bezos didn't co-sign the open letter on SOPA from tech CEO's[1], and that Amazon didn't co-sign the company letter[2], for example.
If he does become active on this, that's great. But given his history I'd be shocked if he put real resources behind it. And until he does it will just be empty words.
[1] http://venturebeat.com/2011/12/14/tech-execs-anti-sopa-lette...
[2] http://www.protectinnovation.com/downloads/letter.pdf
It's pretty well known that Amazon's lobbying in DC is entirely focused on preventing Amazon from having to pay state sales taxes. Bezos has never lifted a finger to help any other tech cause -- note that Bezos didn't co-sign the open letter on SOPA from tech CEO's[1], and that Amazon didn't co-sign the company letter[2], for example.
If he does become active on this, that's great. But given his history I'd be shocked if he put real resources behind it. And until he does it will just be empty words.
[1] http://venturebeat.com/2011/12/14/tech-execs-anti-sopa-lette...
[2] http://www.protectinnovation.com/downloads/letter.pdf
Actually, I think Amazon has switched gears and now is for Sales tax everywhere because they can deal with it better than most other players.
They should just retitle this article "Jeff Bezos finally realizes he's next"
I completely agree with Bezos as it's absurd that companies can patent things like rounded corners or 1-Click shopping, oh, oh wait...
This rings about as hollow as if it were Tim Cook complaining about closed ecosystems. Bezos likely realizes that as Amazon moves into making and selling mobile devices and tablets, they too will be targets for patent litigation.
No, it's better this way. Because Amazon has plenty to lose from letting go of patents, so the message is that much stronger. Amazon is in the game, and if anything on the whole they're winning the game, and they are still saying that the game is messed up and needs to be changed.
If Richard Stallman yells that the patent system is broken and needs to be changed nobody is going to listen, of course he's going to say that, he's a zealot with no skin in the game, it costs him nothing to say that.
If Richard Stallman yells that the patent system is broken and needs to be changed nobody is going to listen, of course he's going to say that, he's a zealot with no skin in the game, it costs him nothing to say that.
All major companies must play the patent game today. They would be insane not to.
I think it's completely valid to play the game while working to change the rules for the better.
I think it's completely valid to play the game while working to change the rules for the better.
If Amazon were merely collecting large quantities of patents and using them against companies who instigated patent litigation against them, I wouldn't be calling Bezos a hypocrite. I understand that - not acquiring patents is almost suicidal right now. However, nobody forced him to patent something trivial (One-Click) and abuse it to gain a competitive advantage.
And at the end of the battle, Slattery shook Ender’s hand and said, “I’m glad you won. If I ever beat you, Ender, I want to do it fair.”
“Use what they give you,” Ender said. “If you’ve ever got an advantage over the enemy, use it.”
“Oh, I did,” said Slattery. He grinned. “I’m only fair-minded before and after battles.”
“Use what they give you,” Ender said. “If you’ve ever got an advantage over the enemy, use it.”
“Oh, I did,” said Slattery. He grinned. “I’m only fair-minded before and after battles.”
Does it matter who's the messenger if the message rings true? I think it makes sense for victims or potential victims of the broken patent system to complain about it and fight to change or eliminate it. Who else is going to do it otherwise? The patent aggressors like Apple and Microsoft? I just don't see that happening.
What matters is that when the messenger is so obviously self-serving and hypocritical it dilutes the message and leads a casual observer to look for the hidden agenda for others who carry the same message. Now that Amazon has used the patent system as a cudgel to achieve a stable position in the market it fears having other companies do to it what it once did to them, Now that Google has used its patents to achieve a solid lock on the search and search advertising market the benefits of strong patents seem less compelling to the founders & board members of that company. If you want credibility then talk about patent reform on the way up, not once you have reached the top and no longer need them to maintain your dominance.
So, if Apple, Google, Microsoft, IBM and all of the other or some subset of the large software companies came out today to say the same thing or completely endorse Amazon CEO's point of view, you would dismiss their message just as equally for who they are and their history?...
That would be a very different context. You can't just take the same story and apply it to a different subset of companies. If Apple were to do this, it would be a very different situation since by doing so, they risk losing market share. Amazon won't lose anything from this, they can only gain.
Two of those four do, more or less, via the Coalition for Patent Fairness — http://www.patentfairness.org/learn/who/supporters/
(Disclaimer: my employer is also a member, and I approve, but play no part.)
(Disclaimer: my employer is also a member, and I approve, but play no part.)
likely not, because they are already in "the battle" and have been on both ends of the barrel, they're not on the outside looking in and considering that they'd prefer not eating a broadside.
Which patent did amazon need to "maintain their dominance"? Did they patent customer service?
They used the One-Click patent against their then biggest rival Barnes & Noble
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click
Several organizations have boycotted Amazon for that:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/amazon.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click
Several organizations have boycotted Amazon for that:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/amazon.html
Thats pretty low, but only reinforces the notions that IP is bad for consumers.
1-Click purchases, which is close in ridiculousness. Buying stuff online clicking once was such an outstanding innovation that it surely deserved protection from all those thieves who never could have figured that out by themselves...
Yes, it does. The message from Bezos, who has a history of abusing the patent system to harm competition, comes off as self-serving and hypocritical, which makes it easier for opponents of patent reform to write it off.
Opponents of patent reform will write off Bezos' message no matter what. That's the nature of "intellectual property" maximalism at the moment. The oppoents of patent reform have some "common sense" style platitudes in favor of patents as they stand, and for stricter enforcement. But no facts - the arguments always boil down to "but Private Property!" or something similar.
There will be no patent reform as long as the tiny niche of web software people claim that everyone who doesn't oppose the existing system is in favor of "IP maximalism." Patent reform is going to require web software people convincing the electrical engineers why software patents have a very different effect in their space than say the patents on OFDM, and they're not going to do it by being arrogant and dismissive.
The rest of the engineering community by and large doesn't understand what software folks are ranting about. People don't accidentally infringe on the OFDM patent, people don't accidentally come up with the same chemical formula for a drug. To them, people who oppose patents are in the same bucket as Chinese companies who rip off American technology--they want to copy other peoples' work for profit.
This is not to say that patent reform in the area of software isn't beneficial or desirable. But the attitude that anybody who opposes it won't listen to reason dramatically overstates the universality of the arguments and the consensus around the position.
The rest of the engineering community by and large doesn't understand what software folks are ranting about. People don't accidentally infringe on the OFDM patent, people don't accidentally come up with the same chemical formula for a drug. To them, people who oppose patents are in the same bucket as Chinese companies who rip off American technology--they want to copy other peoples' work for profit.
This is not to say that patent reform in the area of software isn't beneficial or desirable. But the attitude that anybody who opposes it won't listen to reason dramatically overstates the universality of the arguments and the consensus around the position.
Sure he's a hypocrite. What does that mean, we should keep patents around? So that.. everybody can abuse patents?
> Does it matter who's the messenger if the message rings true?
But the message doesn't ring true if the messenger's actions contradict the message. If I come to you and yell "the building is burning down!!!" and then sit quietly at my desk to continue coding, do you seriously tell me that my actions do not affect how you interpret my message? Bezos could announce he is relinquishing and freely licensing the one-click patent today if he really believes patents hinder innovation and that is bad for society. Then his message would be consistent with his actions. If you don't like this as logic, consider it as an unavoidable fact of human psychology.
But the message doesn't ring true if the messenger's actions contradict the message. If I come to you and yell "the building is burning down!!!" and then sit quietly at my desk to continue coding, do you seriously tell me that my actions do not affect how you interpret my message? Bezos could announce he is relinquishing and freely licensing the one-click patent today if he really believes patents hinder innovation and that is bad for society. Then his message would be consistent with his actions. If you don't like this as logic, consider it as an unavoidable fact of human psychology.
Exactly. Of course Amazon have software patents currently - if they didn't, they'd be easy targets for those who did. I applaud that someone like him stands up to point out the absurdity of the situation.
There is no consensus that the patent system is broken. Amazon's self serving position doesn't help build that consensus.
Well, it's better than Google. Google just jumped right into the game, though they claimed to disagree with it.
Bezos has the cash to play the game. And he had acces to it early enough (remember the one-click patent) to gain a monumental advantage. Relative to the other big players, Amazon has stayed on the sidelines.
Not to say Amazon is an angel that sets the standard for fairplay, but they definitely (? prove me wrong!) do not pursue patents to the extent of Microsoft, Apple, Google and others.
You can either call them naive for not playing, or you can accept that they may have set a better example.
Bezos has the cash to play the game. And he had acces to it early enough (remember the one-click patent) to gain a monumental advantage. Relative to the other big players, Amazon has stayed on the sidelines.
Not to say Amazon is an angel that sets the standard for fairplay, but they definitely (? prove me wrong!) do not pursue patents to the extent of Microsoft, Apple, Google and others.
You can either call them naive for not playing, or you can accept that they may have set a better example.
Pursuing patents is one thing, utilizing them offensively against a competitor is another. Amazon used their one-click patent to harm competitors, but I've seen no evidence of Google utilizing patents against companies who haven't first filed patent litigation against them. I don't think Amazon has set the better example.
Interesting to see how long a bad reputation can stick to someone. So Amazon used some ridiculous patent in the late ninties against the small start-up Barnes&Noble. It made Amazon big and maybe it wasn't right to use it against other ecommerce sites. But that was in the ninties, back than Amazon was far from being as big as they are now.
They used what they had to great effect, the only effect patent battles since 201 have are huge law fees and huge costs for companies. So was Amazon right to use one-click back than? I don't know, but it served them in the long run. Does it serve Applesung if they prevent the sell of Applesung products in certain markets? I don't think so.
Based on this, yes Bezos is right that the system is broken, as broken as it was back in the ninties but today the associated risks grew higher from my point of view. Why? Because patents are strategic weapon which is now used tacticly, and that is always bad.
They used what they had to great effect, the only effect patent battles since 201 have are huge law fees and huge costs for companies. So was Amazon right to use one-click back than? I don't know, but it served them in the long run. Does it serve Applesung if they prevent the sell of Applesung products in certain markets? I don't think so.
Based on this, yes Bezos is right that the system is broken, as broken as it was back in the ninties but today the associated risks grew higher from my point of view. Why? Because patents are strategic weapon which is now used tacticly, and that is always bad.
Exactly, patents are like nukes. I can understand why few countries choose not to unilaterally disarm. But to use a nuke offensively is unthinkable. Yet that's exactly what apple has done, and now patent litigation is consuming the entire tech industry.
Bezos's 2000 open letter on patents: http://oreilly.com/news/amazon_patents.html
Good sentiment, but it's twelve years later and the only positive action we've seen from Amazon concerning patent reform is an offhand comment to a reporter. How's that prior art database coming along, for example? Forgive me for not getting too excited.
Good sentiment, but it's twelve years later and the only positive action we've seen from Amazon concerning patent reform is an offhand comment to a reporter. How's that prior art database coming along, for example? Forgive me for not getting too excited.
I wonder why he doesn't pave a way for the rest of the tech industry giants to start innovating?
"Jeff Bezos calls for governments to end patent wars" seems a bit dramatic when you consider his actual statements.
From the article, he actually said (emphasis mine):
"...we're _starting_ to be in a world where [patents] might start to stifle innovation...Governments _may_ need to look at the patent system and _see_ if those laws need to be modified..."
If he truly believes that the patent system needs to change (and I really think he does), couldn't he have left those qualifiers out? As it is these just seem like timid observations, far from a call for governments to step in and do something.
"...we're _starting_ to be in a world where [patents] might start to stifle innovation...Governments _may_ need to look at the patent system and _see_ if those laws need to be modified..."
If he truly believes that the patent system needs to change (and I really think he does), couldn't he have left those qualifiers out? As it is these just seem like timid observations, far from a call for governments to step in and do something.
What a weak article. The interviewer had Jeff Bezos complaining about patents, and never brought up one-click? He never asked about consistency of position, or if it the uncertainty of being a new entrant into an established market had given him a new perspective on the factors that encourage innovation. The paucity of actual quotes or dialogue in the piece make it seem like the full interview (linked to from the OA) was conducted by sitting behind Bezos in business class and scribbling down what was overheard.
It's the Metro - it is given away free on UK public transport (at least here). Not quite a tabloid, but it's not exactly the Financial Times either.
Sort of like 1973, when the largest stockpilers of nuclear weapons started to talk about limiting them. The weapons holder is in a unique position to know how bad the use of weapons can be.
If anyone has credibility here, it's Bezos (for reasons listed in other posts). Not sarcasm.
Geez guys, when someone hands you a victory, take it.
I think more important than the level of protection at this point is public knowledge and awareness of just what patents are out there. One project that might galvanize federal action just launched and is seeking crowdfunding to shed light in this arena.
Specifically, IP Checkups aims to map out the patents and shell companies of Intellectual Ventures, and potentially other mass aggregators, to foster public knowledge and the original purposes of the patent system. For more information, see: news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57532492-38/patent-activists-lets-light-up-intellectual-ventures-ip-portfolio/
Specifically, IP Checkups aims to map out the patents and shell companies of Intellectual Ventures, and potentially other mass aggregators, to foster public knowledge and the original purposes of the patent system. For more information, see: news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57532492-38/patent-activists-lets-light-up-intellectual-ventures-ip-portfolio/
I'd respect this more if he hadn't patented 1-click shopping. Oh yeah, that was innovative. Now that he has "his," he wants to change the rules. Love your company Jeff, hate your IP policy and not impressed by your flip-flopping.
The article ends with
Mr Bezos would not be drawn on whether Amazon plans to
release a smartphone of its own.
It doesn't say exactly what change he wants.
The devil is in the details.
The devil is in the details.
Realistically, the only way the patent wars can end is if Amazon, Google, Apple and Microsoft all get behind ending it.
But not necessarily in the right way. They can also _agree_ to not sue each other, (or more legally, cross-license each other for free), and the patent wars will end. The small startup will continue to get screwed regardless.
He had very good reasons, Amazon is going to sell a lot of kindle fire and people are going to come after them.
The government has been pretty busy with the debates, I don't think they have attention to patent wars.
Regardless of past transgressions, Jeff Bezos is right. Governments and their people need to examine their patent laws (I would argue all IP laws) and figure out what the right amount of protection is necessary given our modern world.