3 ms·
By that argument I could say that the drug market in the US is in dire need of disruption, since otherwise there'd be no need to ban the sale of cocaine at Walm
by Xylakant 12y ago
By that argument I could say that the drug market in the US is in dire need of disruption, since otherwise there'd be no need to ban the sale of cocaine at Walmart.
- smsm42 12y agoWar on Drugs is the worst thing that happened in US politics in 20th century, but discussing this topic would take us too far aside. In this case, the ban was clearly initiated by competitors (while in Walmart's case it has nothing to do with banning drugs) - the article itself says "The preliminary injunction comes in response to a lawsuit by the national association of taxi drivers." Nobody claims driving is bad - they just claim the other guy can't be allowed to do it.
- Xylakant 12y agoNo, the claim is that by skirting the Personenbeförderungsgesetz (Law on transporting people), Uber is violating the the law about unfair competition. Any competitor in germany can sue any competitor on those grounds: If you engage in unfair business practices you'll be fined. Nobody claimed (at least in this case) that Uber itself should be banned - UberBlack is unaffected by this injunction. Ubers unfair business practices have been banned.