3 ms·

Laws are not something that corporations or citizens have to agree with. They apply regardless. This is the equivalent of Uber deciding not to pay its federal

by veidr 10y ago

Laws are not something that corporations or citizens have to agree with. They apply regardless. This is the equivalent of Uber deciding not to pay its federal taxes. Sure, it could concoct a theory that the corporate income tax "doesn't apply to Uber", and in theory there's a possibility that the IRS might somehow agree. In practice, however, there is none. The major difference here is simply that the penalties for failing to pay taxes are well-defined and severe, while the penalties for failing to obtain a state permit for autonomous vehicle testing are not. Uber is betting on the eventual penalties for their (flagrant and straightforward) violation of these laws will end up being something they prefer over making the relevant disclosures required by the permit.

dimino 10y ago
You're completely begging the question by comparing this to not paying taxes. Uber's argument (and they may be right) is they don't need to "pay taxes" under current law.
jasode 10y ago
>Laws are not something that corporations or citizens have to agree with. They apply regardless. That simplistic reductionism is not true. There are concepts of civil disobedience.[1] History has shown that many laws (e.g. copyright laws, sodomy laws, Jim Crow laws) are more like an ongoing dialogue/battle between the citizens and government for universal compliance. Other laws such as homocide seem more stable for straightforward compliance without controversy. The DMV didn't write the autonomous vehicle laws -- they are interpreting it -- to their benefit. Likewise, Uber didn't write the law either, they are also interpreting it -- to their benefit. Those 2 interpretations differ. I have no idea who is "more correct" in their interpretation. The DMV may have the last word and win. We don't know yet. >This is the equivalent of Uber deciding not to pay its federal taxes. No, the analogy is somebody disagreeing with a government agency's interpretation of the law. An example would be a taxpayer who disagreed with IRS and won the case.[2] It's similar to one entity claiming that early VCR users taping shows were "breaking the law."[3] If VCR consumers and Sony disagree and say it's "fair use", responding to that with "copyright laws apply to everybody regardless" doesn't actually analyze the differing interpretations. Eventually, the consumers and Sony got the Supreme Court to agree with their interpretation by a very close 5-4 majority ruling. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/07/arts/design/tax-court-ruling-is-seen-as-a-victory-for-artists.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/07/arts/design/tax-court-rul... [3] Betamax "fair use" Supreme Court ruling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive....

by veidr 10y ago

dimino 10y ago

You're completely begging the question by comparing this to not paying taxes. Uber's argument (and they may be right) is they don't need to "pay taxes" under current law.

jasode 10y ago

>Laws are not something that corporations or citizens have to agree with. They apply regardless. That simplistic reductionism is not true. There are concepts of civil disobedience.[1] History has shown that many laws (e.g. copyright laws, sodomy laws, Jim Crow laws) are more like an ongoing dialogue/battle between the citizens and government for universal compliance. Other laws such as homocide seem more stable for straightforward compliance without controversy. The DMV didn't write the autonomous vehicle laws -- they are interpreting it -- to their benefit. Likewise, Uber didn't write the law either, they are also interpreting it -- to their benefit. Those 2 interpretations differ. I have no idea who is "more correct" in their interpretation. The DMV may have the last word and win. We don't know yet. >This is the equivalent of Uber deciding not to pay its federal taxes. No, the analogy is somebody disagreeing with a government agency's interpretation of the law. An example would be a taxpayer who disagreed with IRS and won the case.[2] It's similar to one entity claiming that early VCR users taping shows were "breaking the law."[3] If VCR consumers and Sony disagree and say it's "fair use", responding to that with "copyright laws apply to everybody regardless" doesn't actually analyze the differing interpretations. Eventually, the consumers and Sony got the Supreme Court to agree with their interpretation by a very close 5-4 majority ruling. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/07/arts/design/tax-court-ruling-is-seen-as-a-victory-for-artists.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/07/arts/design/tax-court-rul... [3] Betamax "fair use" Supreme Court ruling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive....