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

by mtgx • 14 years ago

321 107 14 years ago

metro.co.uk

DannyBee• 14 years ago

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

suresk4• 14 years ago

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• 14 years ago

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• 14 years ago

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.

troels• 14 years ago

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.

suresk4• 14 years ago

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.

rayiner7• 14 years ago

There is no consensus that the patent system is broken. Amazon's self serving position doesn't help build that consensus.

zmmmmm2• 14 years ago

> 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.

0wza• 14 years ago

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.

suresk4• 14 years ago

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.

nostromo• 14 years ago

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.

suresk4• 14 years ago

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.

InclinedPlane2• 14 years ago

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.

Klinky• 14 years ago

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

krrrh• 14 years ago

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• 14 years ago

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.

SoftwareMaven• 14 years ago

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.

theevocater4• 14 years ago

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.

rayiner7• 14 years ago

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.

aristidb• 14 years ago

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.

aaronblohowiak2• 14 years ago

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.

ultramundane8• 14 years ago

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.

stcredzero2• 14 years ago

> 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!)

theevocater4• 14 years ago

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.

InclinedPlane2• 14 years ago

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.

fpgeek• 14 years ago

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.

wisty2• 14 years ago

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.

nollidge2• 14 years ago

> is a strawman by the name of tu quoque

I think you mean "logical fallacy", not "strawman". Strawman is another, unrelated logical fallacy.

theevocater4• 14 years ago

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.

padobson• 14 years ago

+1, Playing by the rules of a broken game does not make you less credible when you say the rules need fixed.

zeteo• 14 years ago

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.

astral303• 14 years ago

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.

IheartApplesDix2• 14 years ago

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.

theevocater4• 14 years ago

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.

webreac• 14 years ago

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.

bborud• 14 years ago

> Being a hypocrite doesn't make you less correct.

:-)

smegel• 14 years ago

> 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.

TeMPOraL• 14 years ago

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• 14 years ago

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...

antidoh• 14 years ago

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

milesli• 14 years ago

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

sehugg• 14 years ago

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.

IheartApplesDix2• 14 years ago

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

waterlesscloud• 14 years ago

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

cloverich• 14 years ago

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• 14 years ago

>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• 14 years ago

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

johnrgrace• 14 years ago

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.

conanite• 14 years ago

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.

merwill• 14 years ago

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/

OldSchool• 14 years ago

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??

stcredzero2• 14 years ago

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.

WalterBright• 14 years ago

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

tsycho• 14 years ago

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.

CrankyBear• 14 years ago

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.

duxup• 14 years ago

It doesn't say exactly what change he wants.

The devil is in the details.

lh7777• 14 years ago

"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.

chj• 14 years ago

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

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos calls for governments to end patent wars

Related Stories