6 ms·

It's probably an unauthorized use of the API; Lyft's API is not public, and requires a separate agreement to use. https://developer.lyft.com/docs/lyft-develope

It's probably an unauthorized use of the API; Lyft's API is not public, and requires a separate agreement to use. https://developer.lyft.com/docs/lyft-developer-platform-terms-of-use https://developer.lyft.com/docs/lyft-developer-platform-term... One section I'd draw particular attention to reads, "You Will Not: a. use the Platform or Service in any manner that is competitive to Lyft or the Service, including in connection with any application, website or other product or service that also includes, features, endorses, or otherwise supports in any way a third party that provides services competitive to Lyft’s products and services, in our sole discretion; ..." So if Uber profited from that misuse, why wouldn't Lyft have a case?

thaumasiotes 10y ago
Well, in a perfect world, because the clause would be unenforceable as contrary to public policy. I have no opinion on the actual legality of it.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Why is that clause contrary to public policy? If I provide information to my customers, I have to provide the same information directly to my competitor? Why does that make the world better?
  - thaumasiotes 10y ago
    It makes the world better by not attempting to draw a legal distinction based on somebody's internal motives. In this particular case, it makes the world better by recognizing that "prohibiting competition" is not a worthwhile goal for the state to promote. We recently had another spurt of articles praising California's policy of not enforcing noncompetes as to employees. Why are noncompetes for customers a better idea?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - zzalpha 10y ago
      It makes the world better by not attempting to draw a legal distinction based on somebody's internal motives. That's called mens rea and it's how, for example, various types of murder and accidental death are distinguished. It's kind of a core element of western jurisprudence...
- __jal 10y ago
  So, what terms do you see as enforceable on a private API? If I set up a server to respond to only the people I choose, what restrictions can I make on it in your perfect world?
  - zvpxdlk 10y ago
    If you set up a server to respond to only people you choose, it's on you to make sure it's only people you choose that use it. Then you can make any restrictions you want and invalidate access for anyone who goes against your rules
    - Spooky23 10y ago
      So I can brute force your laptop in a coffee shop and steal your shit, because you didn't stop me? The lengths people will go to justify Uber is amazing.
    - __jal 10y ago
      So otherwise it is wild-west, no legal recourse, right? Do you really believe that?
    - RegEx 10y ago
      In other words, every hack is legal?
      - superkuh 10y ago
        If you believe accessing a URL manually, incrementing a number in a URL, or using wget is a hack, yes. At least you'd be in agreement with the US Dept. of Justice in that. The web is open. If you put your a chair out in a public square with a sign on that back that says, "Only paying members can sit." don't be surprised when someone random sits in it.
        zaphar 10y ago
        This puts words in the mouth of the poster that the poster didn't say. The Lyft API is authenticated so it's definitely not like accessing a URL manually, using wget, or or incrementing a number. You have to sign up, get an account and then you can use it. A better analogy would putting your chair in a private room with a locked door and sign on the door that says ask management for access to the chair. Anyone who breaks in to use that chair definitely knows they aren't supposed to be there.
venture_lol 10y ago
It's a good bet that Lyft lawyers are currently preparing and there are probably top level negotiations ongoing between Lyft and Uber regarding this area. If there is evidence Uber attempted a bridge too far such as using the fake accounts to divert Lyft drivers or in some way impacted Lyft level of customer service, Uber can all but ask Lyft not to squeeze too hard
jedberg 10y ago
I think Lyft tries to avoid directly smearing Uber for a couple reasons: 1) Uber paves the way for them legally by using a lot of Uber VC money to fight regulation and lobby, which helps both companies. 2) Lyft is doing a lot of the same things that Uber is doing, they're just less gross about it, but they still skirt laws and do other things government actors may not like, so it would be a bit of kettle and pot.

thaumasiotes 10y ago

Well, in a perfect world, because the clause would be unenforceable as contrary to public policy. I have no opinion on the actual legality of it.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
Why is that clause contrary to public policy? If I provide information to my customers, I have to provide the same information directly to my competitor? Why does that make the world better?
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  It makes the world better by not attempting to draw a legal distinction based on somebody's internal motives. In this particular case, it makes the world better by recognizing that "prohibiting competition" is not a worthwhile goal for the state to promote. We recently had another spurt of articles praising California's policy of not enforcing noncompetes as to employees. Why are noncompetes for customers a better idea?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - zzalpha 10y ago
    It makes the world better by not attempting to draw a legal distinction based on somebody's internal motives. That's called mens rea and it's how, for example, various types of murder and accidental death are distinguished. It's kind of a core element of western jurisprudence...
__jal 10y ago
So, what terms do you see as enforceable on a private API? If I set up a server to respond to only the people I choose, what restrictions can I make on it in your perfect world?
- zvpxdlk 10y ago
  If you set up a server to respond to only people you choose, it's on you to make sure it's only people you choose that use it. Then you can make any restrictions you want and invalidate access for anyone who goes against your rules
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    So I can brute force your laptop in a coffee shop and steal your shit, because you didn't stop me? The lengths people will go to justify Uber is amazing.
  - __jal 10y ago
    So otherwise it is wild-west, no legal recourse, right? Do you really believe that?
  - RegEx 10y ago
    In other words, every hack is legal?
    - superkuh 10y ago
      If you believe accessing a URL manually, incrementing a number in a URL, or using wget is a hack, yes. At least you'd be in agreement with the US Dept. of Justice in that. The web is open. If you put your a chair out in a public square with a sign on that back that says, "Only paying members can sit." don't be surprised when someone random sits in it.
      - zaphar 10y ago
        This puts words in the mouth of the poster that the poster didn't say. The Lyft API is authenticated so it's definitely not like accessing a URL manually, using wget, or or incrementing a number. You have to sign up, get an account and then you can use it. A better analogy would putting your chair in a private room with a locked door and sign on the door that says ask management for access to the chair. Anyone who breaks in to use that chair definitely knows they aren't supposed to be there.

venture_lol 10y ago

It's a good bet that Lyft lawyers are currently preparing and there are probably top level negotiations ongoing between Lyft and Uber regarding this area. If there is evidence Uber attempted a bridge too far such as using the fake accounts to divert Lyft drivers or in some way impacted Lyft level of customer service, Uber can all but ask Lyft not to squeeze too hard

jedberg 10y ago

I think Lyft tries to avoid directly smearing Uber for a couple reasons: 1) Uber paves the way for them legally by using a lot of Uber VC money to fight regulation and lobby, which helps both companies. 2) Lyft is doing a lot of the same things that Uber is doing, they're just less gross about it, but they still skirt laws and do other things government actors may not like, so it would be a bit of kettle and pot.