The question is whether market capital wants to see those who behave poorly get what they deserve for that behavior (and its idea of 'deserve' may be somewhat c

The question is whether market capital wants to see those who behave poorly get what they deserve for that behavior (and its idea of 'deserve' may be somewhat counterintuitive). Evil is more profitable than good, because of externalities. The question is, how MUCH more profitable, and for how long? There are also patterns to consider which have to do with over-reaching, hubris and inability to work within any external context. Uber is the kind of evil that doesn't play nicely with other evil. It's an extraordinary profit opportunity and treated as such, right up to the point where it explodes. The whole thing is based on conflict and dominating everything it touches, but it escalates where it doesn't have to: it can only continue to grow when it's not meaningfully opposed. As such, Uber doing evil actions isn't meaningful, but Uber running afoul of Google in legal conflict is meaningful. Government and law aren't rich enough to oppose Uber, but Google is, and if Uber prevails against Google that drastically weakens Google. I think it'll go the other way. Google is like a considerably more restrained Uber. They're in a position to do what governments and laws cannot.