Uber may face criminal charges over alleged stolen self-driving tech Uber may face criminal charges over its alleged theft of trade secrets from Google-owned self-driving car upstart Waymo. In a California district court, Judge William Alsup yesterday denied the ride-hailing app company's request for the case to be heard in arbitration – where the details would remain private – so the case will …
"Wouldn't it be wonderful if, upon conviction, the whole executive board were sentenced to 230 years prison, each."
You may think that. I may think that. But its irrelevant.
The problem with Uber (and lots of other corporations & politicians) is that proven misbehaviour, immorality and even criminality appears now to be an attraction to its customers instead of a deterrence. If no one hailed Uber then they are history. It isn't as if there are no alternatives.
Until nearly all of us demand honesty and ethical companies than it ain't going to be profitable for many to flourish. A cheat can undercut them (till they have driven them out of the market) and then cream the profit. It used to be called extortion. Its now called 'breaking the mould'.
No, its customers are as guilty as its directors. While 48% will vote for a certain person we have a problem - if only that he will protect the extortionists and declare evidenced investigatory revelations fake - with no evidence.
Wake me up when this dystopia has crumbled ...
"The problem with Uber (and lots of other corporations & politicians) is that proven misbehaviour, immorality and even criminality appears now to be an attraction to its customers instead of a deterrence."
It's more likely that they simply don't know. Unless someone in their Twatbook bubble mentions it then it's highly likely the vast majority will never hear of the various news stories about Uber. Despite it being a story about a company many millions of people have heard of and may actually use, mainstream news seems to be fairly quiet on it.
Sadly the demographic that is even aware of this (or any other) corporate malfeasance is probably contained entirely within this forum, unless they've read about it in the Daily Mail, where they had a brief moment of outrage before moving on to more pressing matters, such as Kate Wright's "eye popping cleavage".
I was of that opinion but a few past experiences have made me wonder if maybe the taxi companies had been a bit better then there would have been no space for Uber.
Long distance journey, Uber certainly won out with a price difference of about £30
Where I used to live in the countryside, one local taxi firm had all the local villages sewn up, so you had no choice, this means they could be very late and you would still be stuck using them next time, 4 mile journeys on Friday and Saturday nights being charged around £15-20. They had a monopoly and knew it.
Foreign country, I haven't used Uber but have used something similar called grab taxi, its been quite handy giving you an idea of what you should be paying especially when a lot of the taxis go for making a bit extra out of the foreigners.
Not a fan of Uber and their practices, and I think they should definitely be more regulated. But in some places the cab firms are getting this kickback from customers because they have been running some shoddy practices as well.
First off, taxis are heavily regulated. The vehicle must be tested annually, to a higher standard. It must have a taxi plate, which means they have to pay a stipend to the local council or whoever, for the privilege of operating a taxi service. Then they need insurance. That's going to be a cut above your average "I just commute to work and back" car insurance. On top of that, the driver has to have a special license and in some cases has to be vetted. In London, that driving test is legendary. Finally, they put a lot of wear and tear on their cars and who'd buy a second-hand taxi?
By way of contrast, if I set up a stall in Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco, selling crisp, new $5 for a mere $4 each, you can bet that Uber would undercut me and sell them for $3. Uber is coining it, and yet they are losing money at a phenomenal rate - that's because they are undercutting the market. Your savings of 30 quid were paid for by a generous venture capitalist. Not to mention the lack of payments to the local council et al. But don't expect Uber to do that forever. Their intent is to force out the competition, until they're the only game in town. Then you can expect any savings to disappear overnight. Not to mention their peak pricing algorithms.
I'm just waiting for the insurance industry, particularly in Europe/UK, to decide they won't indemnify anyone who has an accident while carrying paying passengers. That ought to bring Uber down to earth in a big hurry, if nothing else does.
Most corporations (and their leaders) today have as many scruples as the average serial killer, but they at least PRETEND to be pro-social in some way. Uber can't even fake it convincingly.
Totally agree it's time for Uber to ride off into the sunset. And it's management possibly to the penitentiary. No loss.
AFAIK, (Am I wrong?)
It's odd because Uber makes a loss and is part funded by Google, is part owned by Google (not majoriity) and supplies all their passenger, trip and driver info to Google (which is illegal in EU, but EU law is slow).
Is it just that Google doesn't want them to do "self driving" vehicles?
No one is an "Internet Company"
Uber has drivers, that can't work for self or anyone else. Internet only used to book.
Amazon is a retailer of books, tat, a Library subscription service, video streaming services and Hosting company (hosting pre-dates Internet by 20 years, Cloud = Marketing speak for hosting). Internet only used to connect.
AirBnB is rental agency
Lyft is a taxi company like Uber
Google is an Advertising agency that uses virtual billboards. nearly an "internet company."
I can't understand how Uber has got away with the fiction they are not a taxi company for so long.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
