The context is important. France happens to have a very influential taxi monopoly headquartered in Paris. The broad lines have been sketched by a recent Nouvel

The context is important. France happens to have a very influential taxi monopoly headquartered in Paris. The broad lines have been sketched by a recent Nouvel Obs article [1]. Amongst other things, the former head of the French FBI is now chairman of one of the group's taxi companies, right after he delivered an internal government report skewering taxi competitors (and that was probably just the tip of the iceberg). No new licenses were given in Paris between 1990 and 2002 despite a 49% increase in airport passenger traffic and 17% increase in population. The system itself is designed to maximise revenue; for example, taxis will not be allocated on the basis of proximity to the customer, but on the basis of which has waited longest, time that (according to the Nouvel Obs anyway - I haven't taken a taxi in Paris in ages) is charged to the customer immediately. Drivers pay a fortune to the company and often work 7-day weeks to make ends meet as a result. This, by the way, is why drivers on call in Paris will often refuse to drive you if your destination is too close. Uber's strategy was simple, to gain so much popularity as to make it extremely expensive for the lobbying effort to continue. Rule of law? Personally, I do not think that people buying themselves favorable laws should be legal and defendable. For both executives to be on police watch when they are clearly not a flight risk is a sign that the monopoly is well connected and has obtained favour with the government. [1] edit: link is now offline, Web Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20150317180809/http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/economie/20150212.OBS2398/comment-le-roi-des-taxis-compte-contrer-uber-au-detriment-des-clients.html https://web.archive.org/web/20150317180809/http://tempsreel....