
Amazon founder Jeff Bezos calls for governments to end patent wars - mtgx
http://www.metro.co.uk/tech/915146-amazon-founder-jeff-bezos-calls-for-governments-to-end-patent-wars
======
theevocater
People have already been making this mistake: calling out Jeff Bezos over
Amazon's one-click patent is a strawman by the name of tu quoque
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque>). This is a non-argument. Being a
hypocrite doesn't make you less correct.

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.

~~~
rayiner
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.

~~~
aaronblohowiak
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.

~~~
jamesaguilar
> 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.

~~~
tsotha
>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...](http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/special-
comment/ebay-v-newmark-al-franken-was-right-corporations-are-legally-required-
to-maximize-profits/)

~~~
wpietri
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.

------
TeMPOraL
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?

~~~
VMG
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...](http://web.archive.org/web/20081121093238/http://www.gnu.org./philosophy/amazon.html)

------
SoftwareMaven
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.

------
OldSchool
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??

------
cloverich
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.

~~~
commandar
>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.

------
adastra
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...](http://venturebeat.com/2011/12/14/tech-execs-anti-sopa-letter/)

[2] <http://www.protectinnovation.com/downloads/letter.pdf>

~~~
johnrgrace
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.

------
DannyBee
They should just retitle this article "Jeff Bezos finally realizes he's next"

------
Klinky
I completely agree with Bezos as it's absurd that companies can patent things
like rounded corners or 1-Click shopping, oh, oh wait...

------
suresk
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.

~~~
mtgx
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.

~~~
evgen
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.

~~~
drucken
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?...

~~~
majorlazer
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.

------
sehugg
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.

~~~
IheartApplesDix
I wonder why he doesn't pave a way for the rest of the tech industry giants to
start innovating?

------
lh7777
"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.

------
krrrh
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.

~~~
jrabone
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.

------
stcredzero
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.

------
antidoh
If anyone has credibility here, it's Bezos (for reasons listed in other
posts). Not sarcasm.

------
waterlesscloud
Geez guys, when someone hands you a victory, take it.

------
merwill
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/

------
CrankyBear
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.

------
conanite
The article ends with

    
    
      Mr Bezos would not be drawn on whether Amazon plans to
      release a smartphone of its own.
    

Amazon's plans in the smartphone market may be influencing Jeff's argument.

------
duxup
It doesn't say exactly what change he wants.

The devil is in the details.

------
WalterBright
Realistically, the only way the patent wars can end is if Amazon, Google,
Apple and Microsoft all get behind ending it.

~~~
tsycho
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.

------
chj
He had very good reasons, Amazon is going to sell a lot of kindle fire and
people are going to come after them.

------
milesli
The government has been pretty busy with the debates, I don't think they have
attention to patent wars.

