7 ms·

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.

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 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 14y 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 14y 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.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    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.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      No matter how credible you may think he is, he is still right.
  - coliveira 14y ago
    > 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?
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      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.
    - snogglethorpe 14y ago
      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.]
- aaronblohowiak 14y 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.
  - tambourine_man 14y 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. That's the very definition of hypocrisy, which is what Bezos is being called of. One can be a hypocrite and still be right.
    - ddlatham 14y ago
      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.
      - tambourine_man 14y ago
        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
        zaphar 14y ago
        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.
- ultramundane8 14y 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.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    The formal fallacies are errors in deductive reasoning. The informal fallacies are errors in inductive (statistical) reasoning. Bezos's argument is neither.
- stcredzero 14y 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!)
- theevocater 14y 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.
- InclinedPlane 14y 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.
- kaffiene 14y ago
  Not true at all: logical fallacies apply to all arguments. In fact, most of them never apply in the context of purely logical arguments - .e.g: argument from authority, ad hominem attacks. Those are the stuff of standard debate.
- fpgeek 14y 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.
- wisty 14y 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.
nollidge 14y ago
> is a strawman by the name of tu quoque I think you mean "logical fallacy", not "strawman". Strawman is another, unrelated logical fallacy.
- theevocater 14y 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.
  - nollidge 14y ago
    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 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.
padobson 14y ago
+1, Playing by the rules of a broken game does not make you less credible when you say the rules need fixed.
zeteo 14y 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 14y 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.
- IheartApplesDix 14y 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.
- theevocater 14y 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.
  - dbecker 14y ago
    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.
- webreac 14y 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 14y ago
> Being a hypocrite doesn't make you less correct. :-)
smegel 14y 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.

rayiner 14y 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 14y 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.
- rayiner 14y ago
  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.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    No matter how credible you may think he is, he is still right.
- coliveira 14y ago
  > 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?
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    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.
  - snogglethorpe 14y ago
    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.]
aaronblohowiak 14y 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.
- tambourine_man 14y 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. That's the very definition of hypocrisy, which is what Bezos is being called of. One can be a hypocrite and still be right.
  - ddlatham 14y ago
    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.
    - tambourine_man 14y ago
      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
      - zaphar 14y ago
        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.
ultramundane8 14y 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.
- rayiner 14y ago
  The formal fallacies are errors in deductive reasoning. The informal fallacies are errors in inductive (statistical) reasoning. Bezos's argument is neither.
stcredzero 14y 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!)
theevocater 14y 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.
InclinedPlane 14y 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.
kaffiene 14y ago
Not true at all: logical fallacies apply to all arguments. In fact, most of them never apply in the context of purely logical arguments - .e.g: argument from authority, ad hominem attacks. Those are the stuff of standard debate.
fpgeek 14y 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.
wisty 14y 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.

nollidge 14y ago

> is a strawman by the name of tu quoque I think you mean "logical fallacy", not "strawman". Strawman is another, unrelated logical fallacy.

theevocater 14y 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.
- nollidge 14y ago
  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 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.

padobson 14y ago

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

zeteo 14y 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 14y 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.

IheartApplesDix 14y 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.
theevocater 14y 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.
- dbecker 14y ago
  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.
webreac 14y 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 14y ago

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

smegel 14y 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.