[ubernostrum]

It's simple enough, I don't even see what there is to argue.

What there is to argue is that there are industries where regulation serves no purpose other than to stifle competition, and there are industries where regulation serves the purpose of actually protecting people.

Taxi licensing is an example of the latter.

And in general, as much as HN loves the narrative of "plucky disruptive hackers vs. evil entrenched interests", it is fundamentally not right for a company to "disrupt" by skirting laws and regulations that competitors are required to obey. It is also unsurprising that competitors raise an unholy stink when that happens, and you would do exactly the same if placed in that situation.

[AVTizzle]

1. Your claim re: Taxi licensing... Without exception, every de facto law is in place to "protect people". Whether or not that's the case is for the lawyers to argue and for the court to decide.

2. I can't argue that I wouldn't complain if I was an entrenched incumbent. Luckily for me I guess that's not the case.

It's just my opinion, but as I see it, it's fair enough to classify all the aforementioned cases as examples of analog regulations in a digital world. New digital players taking advantage of the latest technology, and old players taking advantage of yesterday's laws.