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 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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
