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.