[icebraining]

If they would take the time to get proper legislation passed it could end up fine.

Except that doesn't work (with a few exceptional countries/cities), because the incumbents have massive political capital and Uber doesn't, and it's very hard to get popular support for something people haven't experienced.

I don't like Uber for other reasons, but regarding this tactic, I'm fine with it.

Even if we agree that these laws are important, surely there's no short term harm in having Uber around - it's not like they're dumping waste or performing unlicensed surgery - the courts just have to issue a ruling and everything can go back to normal in a week.

[phatfish]

I would love to know who these "incumbents with massive political capital" are. Where i live most licensed taxi firms are small businesses run by local people providing local jobs.

Uber are now stomping these small companies by ignoring local law because they can afford the fines or just don't care.

I agree they are being allowed to do this in many places, and that it the fault of the government -- but i am certainly NOT fine with it.

They want to be the taxi service for the world which is a fast track to disaster for everyone except Uber.

[icebraining]

I would love to know who these "incumbents with massive political capital" are. Where i live most licensed taxi firms are small businesses run by local people providing local jobs.

Yes they are. And they group themselves (here in Portugal we have a single, national association of taxi companies, which was the organization that got the court to ban Uber) and have long standing relationships with local parties and politicians.

The fact that they're small business is irrelevant; we're talking about political capital, ie., influence, not money.

A good example is how the Portuguese court ruled without even hearing Uber.

Uber are now stomping these small companies by ignoring local law because they can afford the fines or just don't care.

By stomping, you mean competing?