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.

There is one common law school case where a court smacked down Henry Ford for saying he didn't care about shareholders, just his workers, but that's because it was the Dodge brothers bringing suit and Henry Ford was being a huge dick. That case wasn't really a correct statement of the law even at the time.

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...

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.

Even that doesn't pin them down. Amazon can easily say they believe it is in their own long term interests to campaign against patent laws and therefore sacrificing a small short term profit from the one-click patent is a logically correct way to maximize long term shareholder value. The argument that a company "has to do evil thing X" to maximize shareholder value is pretty much always just an excuse for avoiding argument about whether "thing X" is evil or not.

http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/sp...

If on the other hand a company's charter stats that 50% of all profits are donated to charity before it goes public then you your unlikely to successively sue them for continuing to do so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/11/technology/11soft.html

Along massive quantities of data. http://depth-first.com/articles/2011/12/15/ibm-donates-large...

That's the very definition of hypocrisy, which is what Bezos is being called of. One can be a hypocrite and still be right.

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

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.

If I could legally vote twice because I had a college degree, I would -- even though I would support repealing such a rule.

That's doing in practice the opposite of what you believe, promoting a principle that one is also guilty of violating.

It's also unethical in my view. The ends do not justify the means.

As in, there is no contradiction or hypocrisy if someone explicitly states their ordered preferences like this:

1) The law states that everyone gets one vote, I vote once.

2) The law states that college grads get two votes, I vote twice.

3) The law states that college grads get two votes, I vote once.

Jeff Bezos isn't opposing patents on moral grounds; he thinks that there would be economic benefit to everyone, including his company, to get rid of them. It would be of economic benefit to only everyone but Amazon if only Amazon abstained from having patents.

You may not agree with Wikipedia's definition of hypocrisy. That's fine, find another. But practicing the opposite of what you believe fits it perfectly.

Basically, if you want to maximize the expected value of fish you catch your going to fish to the limit of your capabilities. It would also be perfectly rational to suggest instituting catch limits with vary large penalties. After the rule change you may be perfectly happy to obey them because they make you more money for less effort and breaking them is not worth the risk. Note, a lot of environmental preservation is rational it's voluntary environmentalism that's often irrational behavior.

The Categorical Imperative (act only according to that maxim by which you can also will that it would become a universal law) suggests it is hypocritical - if it's bad for everyone to do it, it's bad for anyone to do it. Of course, not everyone agrees with Kant.

But that's not the only way to view ethics. More pragmatic people would say - "Sometimes the game is broken, and you have to do things which feel a bit wrong. That doesn't mean you can't advocate for the rules to be changed, though".

I don't think you can say he's a total hypocrite. He's not suggesting that all his competitors virtuously refrain from abusing patents, while he himself is abusing them. I don't see any real dishonesty or inconsistency.