Ethics of Amazon's One-Click Patent: Two Philosophical Views

Introduction: Patents and Ethical Frameworks

Patents are meant to protect the intellectual property of those who apply for them. They are granted when a process represents a unique idea, or when it offers an improvement to an existing idea that does not infringe on the original patent and is itself unique. The question is not whether patents themselves are ethical, but whether a business requesting a patent for an entire process is ethical. People with different philosophical outlooks would view this question very differently. On the one hand, a rule utilitarian would examine the patent rules and judge based on that criteria, whereas a natural rights theorist would hold a completely different outlook.

This paper examines the patent application for Amazon's revolutionary "one-click" payment processing through the lens of both a rule utilitarian and a natural rights theorist, and considers how a person with each set of beliefs would accept or reject Amazon's patent proposal.

Rule Utilitarian Case for Granting the Patent

The central question here is whether the rule itself is correct — that is, whether Amazon has the right to hold this patent based on the applicable rules. Specifically, the question is whether Amazon should have the right to every type of code that conducts business in the same way. Patent law in the United States is deliberately broad, as it serves to encourage innovation and provides inventors with some assurance that their intellectual property will not be stolen.

A rule utilitarian would vote in favor of the application because patents are granted to those who have a unique vision for a product. The fact that Amazon, or one of its employees working under contract, devised this method of payment means that the company has the right to hold exclusive rights to it. The product is unique and does not infringe on any previously patented material. Furthermore, the patent should be granted on the basis that, regardless of whether the technical pathway is changed, the end product — one-click functionality — remains the same. Accordingly, the rule utilitarian would support granting the patent in accordance with patent law.

Rule Utilitarian Case for Denying the Patent

To deny the patent request, a rule utilitarian would need a rule that somehow disputed the facts of the application. While this product may be the sole intellectual property of Amazon, that does not mean the company should hold exclusive rights to the underlying idea simply because it was the first to perfect it. This would be analogous to claiming that the inventor was also the first to conceive of the idea — a claim that cannot be proven.

A denial would follow from the breadth of Amazon's application. Amazon seeks to control any method capable of producing one-click functionality, and by rule, this overreach is impermissible. Another company may develop a similar end result — one-click functionality — provided it uses a different technical pathway to achieve it. Thus, a competitor can devise an alternative means of reaching this objective, and Amazon's patent cannot lawfully be used to prevent that outcome. On these grounds, a rule utilitarian might support denial on the basis of monopoly law.

Conclusion

It seems that the arguments against granting the patent are the more compelling ones, because seeking an all-inclusive patent is precisely what monopolistic behavior consists of. Nevertheless, the arguments for both types of theorists can each be made effectively. It is notable how an argument can be turned against itself using the very same philosophical framework — a demonstration of the genuine complexity inherent in applied ethics.