Re: Finally some common sense
>I'm amazed they've been able to get away with this for so long. One is minded to wonder whether they have felt the need to 'employ' any local politicians.
It's not about politicians; it's about lawyers and they absolutely love this shit. The application of law isn't based on right and wrong; it's based on the statute and the precedent set by past cases.
In this case there isn't a law that says you're not allowed to start an internet company which provides taxi services. There are plenty of laws which state that if you start a taxi company you have to abide by the law set for taxi companies. Uber's defence is that they aren't a taxi company and this is what is being challenged.
Now of course, this is the first time this has happened so there are no past cases to reference, which is why this has ultimately been progressed up through the various levels of courts to the ECJ.
Once a ruling has been made, and assuming there are no further avenues for appeal, this will become the test case and will hopefully set the bar for internet companies providing a service and pretending that they're not.
What I struggle to understand is why this is any different from a drug overlord saying I never touched any of the drugs and all the money I got was gifts from people who liked me. But the law is very specific and it's always possible to argue that two examples aren't the same. It's what lawyers do.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
