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.
