3 ms·

I don't think they missed reading that. Just that regardless, the whole reason for the suit in the first place is just because a new company beat Taxi's at the

I don't think they missed reading that. Just that regardless, the whole reason for the suit in the first place is just because a new company beat Taxi's at their game and the Taxi companies decided to complain rather than innovate.

kevingadd 3y ago
They broke the law, if they didn't want to potentially pay fines or a settlement, they shouldn't have broken the law. They could have spent all this money lobbying in advance to get laws repealed or get an exception instead. In the grand scheme of things it seems like it worked out for them.
- protocolture 3y ago
  >They could have spent all this money lobbying So the valid response to an unjust situation is to throw money at it and pray for change? That our laws should be decided on who has the most money? Cabcharge V Uber? Or that, the law being stupid and unjust, was ignored by Uber, to the benefit of millions of australians, who experienced cheaper fares, resulting in a massive push to get the law changed from the bottom up?
  - mvdtnz 3y ago
    Not everyone agrees with you that the situation was "unjust". And Uber is not the plucky underdog you're portraying them as. They built an empire on capital from the likes of Blackrock, JPMorgan, Softbank and other heavy hitters.
    - theshackleford 3y ago
      > Not everyone agrees with you that the situation was "unjust". More do, than don’t. You won’t find many shedding tears for the bullshit grift that was most of the Australian taxi industry. Good riddance to it and the completely terrible laws that allowed their nonsense to continue unabated for as long as it did.
      - NoPicklez 3y ago
        Exactly. Even if Uber had "Uber" funding, using Uber is a far better experience than using our Taxi services. Paying for and knowing how much your ride is going to cost before hand, using an app to be able to hail an Uber and see in real time as they're coming. Just the basics they never had
    - protocolture 3y ago
      They arent a plucky underdog, they are a very large monied dog whose interests align better with the consumer than cabcharges near legislative monopoly.
weq 3y ago
The prices of cartel approved taxi plates crashed from ~200-150k to ~20k overnight once the market saw that the gov was letting Uber continue operating. Uber didnt compete on the same field, they created a new game, that was completely illegal in Australia, on another field. If a regular joe did that he would gaol. This payment compentsates those taxi licence holders who held the dip.
- protocolture 3y ago
  Irrelevant. Uber flattened the market, removed cabcharge dominance. And removed the barrier to entry for other players. Just because the barrier to entry was a tradable government stamp is irrelevant. There shouldnt have been a barrier in the first place. Uber, in a weird, stupid, modernity sucks way, brought justice to an industry that had been unjust for a very long time. Love them or hate them, cabcharge is worse. >If a regular joe did that he would gaol. Also bad. The government and taxi lobby should not have set up a situation where giving a ride for money could lead to incarceration. This doesnt support your point, it just further illustrates that the situation was unjust until uber acted.
  - mvdtnz 3y ago
    You saying "irrelevant" doesn't make it so. The law of the land is, in fact, very relevant in a lawsuit.
    - protocolture 3y ago
      Its a thought terminating cliche. A law being a law doesnt end an argument. If the law shouldn't be, we are permitted to continue thinking towards its removal.

kevingadd 3y ago

They broke the law, if they didn't want to potentially pay fines or a settlement, they shouldn't have broken the law. They could have spent all this money lobbying in advance to get laws repealed or get an exception instead. In the grand scheme of things it seems like it worked out for them.

protocolture 3y ago
>They could have spent all this money lobbying So the valid response to an unjust situation is to throw money at it and pray for change? That our laws should be decided on who has the most money? Cabcharge V Uber? Or that, the law being stupid and unjust, was ignored by Uber, to the benefit of millions of australians, who experienced cheaper fares, resulting in a massive push to get the law changed from the bottom up?
- mvdtnz 3y ago
  Not everyone agrees with you that the situation was "unjust". And Uber is not the plucky underdog you're portraying them as. They built an empire on capital from the likes of Blackrock, JPMorgan, Softbank and other heavy hitters.
  - theshackleford 3y ago
    > Not everyone agrees with you that the situation was "unjust". More do, than don’t. You won’t find many shedding tears for the bullshit grift that was most of the Australian taxi industry. Good riddance to it and the completely terrible laws that allowed their nonsense to continue unabated for as long as it did.
    - NoPicklez 3y ago
      Exactly. Even if Uber had "Uber" funding, using Uber is a far better experience than using our Taxi services. Paying for and knowing how much your ride is going to cost before hand, using an app to be able to hail an Uber and see in real time as they're coming. Just the basics they never had
  - protocolture 3y ago
    They arent a plucky underdog, they are a very large monied dog whose interests align better with the consumer than cabcharges near legislative monopoly.

weq 3y ago

The prices of cartel approved taxi plates crashed from ~200-150k to ~20k overnight once the market saw that the gov was letting Uber continue operating. Uber didnt compete on the same field, they created a new game, that was completely illegal in Australia, on another field. If a regular joe did that he would gaol. This payment compentsates those taxi licence holders who held the dip.

protocolture 3y ago
Irrelevant. Uber flattened the market, removed cabcharge dominance. And removed the barrier to entry for other players. Just because the barrier to entry was a tradable government stamp is irrelevant. There shouldnt have been a barrier in the first place. Uber, in a weird, stupid, modernity sucks way, brought justice to an industry that had been unjust for a very long time. Love them or hate them, cabcharge is worse. >If a regular joe did that he would gaol. Also bad. The government and taxi lobby should not have set up a situation where giving a ride for money could lead to incarceration. This doesnt support your point, it just further illustrates that the situation was unjust until uber acted.
- mvdtnz 3y ago
  You saying "irrelevant" doesn't make it so. The law of the land is, in fact, very relevant in a lawsuit.
  - protocolture 3y ago
    Its a thought terminating cliche. A law being a law doesnt end an argument. If the law shouldn't be, we are permitted to continue thinking towards its removal.