4 ms·

There have been few companies that have tried. Some mentioned in thread. They all had trouble working with tfl. One company licenced their software with an exi

by UK-AL 9y ago

There have been few companies that have tried. Some mentioned in thread. They all had trouble working with tfl. One company licenced their software with an existing cab company in order to work with them. TFL started an investigation and unlicensed the previously legally licenced private taxi company for no stated reason. Make no mistake they are activity hostile against innovation that could make taxi travel cheaper and faster. https://blog.taxify.eu/2017/09/bringing-fairer-ride-hailing-to-london/ https://blog.taxify.eu/2017/09/bringing-fairer-ride-hailing-... I suspect anyone who looks like they could be the next uber would simply be shutdown.

urbanj 9y ago
Suck it up, Brexit cunt.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
vertex-four 9y ago
Reading Taxify's side of the story alone reveals significant bias, and even that seems to suggest that what happened is that Taxify bought an existing company for its minicab license - which is practically bound to be a problem. Why couldn't they find a customer to sell their product to without acquiring that customer? The problem wasn't the app - it was the company bypassing the licensing process. Interestingly, their link suggesting that hundreds of private hire operators are in the process of being reviewed does not say what they think it says, and does not in fact contain any statistics for private hire operators being reviewed.
- Pyxl101 9y ago
  Buying a company that owns an asset or holds a license is a reasonable way to obtain said asset or license. Nothing wrong with that.
  - twic 9y ago
    If you're talking about a license in the sense of a right, like a copyright or patent license, or a license to drill for oil somewhere, then yes. But this is a license in the sense of regulatory approval of a specific organisation, which is not something it's proper to buy and sell. You can't buy someone's driving license, gun license, medical license, license, etc.
    - eric_the_read 9y ago
      It's common in many parts of the US to buy a liquor license from an existing establishment.
      - bsder 9y ago
        And generally there is a process that needs to be followed as well--public posting, public comment, etc. Any changes like operating hours, operating address, etc. means you have to go back to your council/commission. Liquor licenses rarely just transfer unless you bought the whole business and didn't actually change a thing.
    - ubernostrum 9y ago
      In the insurance field "acqui-license" deals, like "acqui-hire" in tech, are not impossible or even necessarily discouraged. Every US state has its own set of regulations for who can be issued a license to sell insurance, and usually it's easier from a bureaucracy perspective to maintain the license once you have it than it is to get a new one. So buying and selling of companies solely for their existing insurance licenses is a thing.
      - stuaxo 9y ago
        Sure, though The UK is another regulatory regime again.
    - jaredklewis 9y ago
      Not sure the drivers license is a fair metaphor. That makes some sense: the government is saying this particular individual appears to be capable of driving. People change (thus the need for periodic renewals) but usually don’t change so dramatically that they can no longer drive. But how does regulatory approval work with institutions? Institutions are ever changing, and like the ship of Theseus, eventually the original company will replace all of its employees, management, and even processes. So what triggers a need for renewed regulatory approval? If the original company switches out 50% of its workforce it can keep its license, but if the owner changes suddenly the license is invalid. How does that make sense?

by UK-AL 9y ago

urbanj 9y ago

Suck it up, Brexit cunt.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

vertex-four 9y ago

Reading Taxify's side of the story alone reveals significant bias, and even that seems to suggest that what happened is that Taxify bought an existing company for its minicab license - which is practically bound to be a problem. Why couldn't they find a customer to sell their product to without acquiring that customer? The problem wasn't the app - it was the company bypassing the licensing process. Interestingly, their link suggesting that hundreds of private hire operators are in the process of being reviewed does not say what they think it says, and does not in fact contain any statistics for private hire operators being reviewed.

Pyxl101 9y ago
Buying a company that owns an asset or holds a license is a reasonable way to obtain said asset or license. Nothing wrong with that.
- twic 9y ago
  If you're talking about a license in the sense of a right, like a copyright or patent license, or a license to drill for oil somewhere, then yes. But this is a license in the sense of regulatory approval of a specific organisation, which is not something it's proper to buy and sell. You can't buy someone's driving license, gun license, medical license, license, etc.
  - eric_the_read 9y ago
    It's common in many parts of the US to buy a liquor license from an existing establishment.
    - bsder 9y ago
      And generally there is a process that needs to be followed as well--public posting, public comment, etc. Any changes like operating hours, operating address, etc. means you have to go back to your council/commission. Liquor licenses rarely just transfer unless you bought the whole business and didn't actually change a thing.
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    In the insurance field "acqui-license" deals, like "acqui-hire" in tech, are not impossible or even necessarily discouraged. Every US state has its own set of regulations for who can be issued a license to sell insurance, and usually it's easier from a bureaucracy perspective to maintain the license once you have it than it is to get a new one. So buying and selling of companies solely for their existing insurance licenses is a thing.
    - stuaxo 9y ago
      Sure, though The UK is another regulatory regime again.
  - jaredklewis 9y ago
    Not sure the drivers license is a fair metaphor. That makes some sense: the government is saying this particular individual appears to be capable of driving. People change (thus the need for periodic renewals) but usually don’t change so dramatically that they can no longer drive. But how does regulatory approval work with institutions? Institutions are ever changing, and like the ship of Theseus, eventually the original company will replace all of its employees, management, and even processes. So what triggers a need for renewed regulatory approval? If the original company switches out 50% of its workforce it can keep its license, but if the owner changes suddenly the license is invalid. How does that make sense?