Uber Now Blocked All Over Germany

An anonymous reader writes Following the blocking of Uber in Berlin, DE, the district court of Frankfurt/Main has issued a restraining order for Uber services all over Germany (German original). The district court is alleging "uncompetitive behavior" (Unlauteres Wettbewerbsverhalten) on Uber's part, and has proclaimed that not following the restraining order will result in a fine of €250.000 or imprisonment. This ruling is related to the German "Personenbeförderungsgesetz" and is outlining that no legal entity (person, enterprise) is allowed to transfer passengers without having passed the relevant tests and having the appropriate insurance coverage.

Comments

Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[i kan reed]

And while it conflicts with ideals I consider higher, proportionality and due process, I can't not be amused at the irony of attempting to corner a market resulting your outright exclusion from it.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

only if you believe that free people can be allowed to exchanged goods and services, and order their affairs as they see fit within the confines of the laws of nature.

but if you DO belive that, then you are obviously a racist.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

In Socialist Germany, market corners YOU!

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Ofcourse free people can do that. there just arent any free people left, if they ever existed.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[Noah Haders]

I fail to see how entering a market is equivalent to trying to corner it. They're not trying to block out other rideshare services. If anything it is others who have the market cornered, and uber is trying to open the door.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[jythie]

Keep in mind they would not be facing these injunctions if they were playing by the same rules as the competition. It is kinda like a street vender skipping on sales tax, of course they can offer lower prices if they do not have to pay taxes, but that is pretty unfair to the stores that are collecting it. Thus unfair trade practices.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[flayzernax]

Yes, attacking government revenue streams is not exactly anti competative though. But this is the world we live in. This is such a hard thing to explain to the layperson.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[Mr D from 63]

That is at the core of the issue. Either allow all taxi drivers to operate without license or regulation, or require uber drivers to meet those requirements. Anything else would seem unfair to me.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[crackspackle]

Yes, attacking government revenue streams is not exactly anti competative though. But this is the world we live in. This is such a hard thing to explain to the layperson.

You realize are real costs involved Uber isn't paying? Taxis are commercial services and part of their fees are used to maintain roads and public facilities they use more heavily than private drivers. They are also required to provide equal access and maintain a certain percentage of handicap accessible vehicles available at all times. They also have to carry the proper insurance because if they skirted the law on this point, the rest of us would end up paying.

And that's about what's happening with Uber and Lyft. We will end up paying the costs they are ignoring. To make matters worse, those costs will be spread out over everyone even those most will never use these services. As it's a semi-elite market, that translate to those who can least afford it will subsidize cheaper rides for those who can and we'll all pay added tax dollars essentially straight into the pockets of Uber's founders. I can't blame Germany for being smart and making them follow the rules.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know how it works in Germany, but in most major American cities the city runs a franchise operation, or something similar. The fees are miniscule. The point of the franchise is to limit competition so that drivers are paid a decent wage and service is uniform and consistent. It's effectively a tax, but one that for the most part runs straight into the pockets of the drivers and operators

It's funny how young programmers think Uber is so great, and yet they complain about outsourcing and H1-B visas. I guess it's how most things work--the cheaper service is great when it's not your job on the line, but when it's your job on the line there are a million reasons why it's not fair.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[jythie]

And that gets to the root of much of this, Uber supporters WANT it to be unfair out of some feeling that the incumbents must be keeping competition out through unfair means (not to say they are not in some areas), thus they are applying the anti-golden rule (do unto others as you suspect they are doing unto you)... or at minimal 'people with new gold should rule'

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[spire3661]

Keep in mind that the current ruleset is built for the entrenched players. If Uber waited around for regulatory compliance, they wouldnt be in business. The plain fact is ALL OF MODERN LIFE IS MONEY. There is a price for everything and those that would consider themselves your betters force payment.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[DogDude]

There is a price for everything and those that would consider themselves your betters force payment.

They're called regulations, and many of them are in place for good reason, such as public safety. In society, we all have to play by the same rules.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the analogy applies. Sales tax goes to pay for things that we all can't really help but benefit from (things like roads and streetlights) en masse and so its not fair for one group to not pay sales tax because everyone benefits from sales tax.

Taxi insurance and licensing is not at all the same, the benefit is purely on an individual basis. You can pay a little extra for a guarantee that the driver is well qualified, knows where he's going, and the security that he's insured (on your behalf) should anything fuck up. Or you can pay less, still get where you want to go but with none of these assurances. I don't see the problem here.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Why play a game rigged in your opponents favor fairly?

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[rlp]

Many regulations are in place to assure safety and the public good. However, all too often, the regulated get control of the regulatory agencies ("regulatory capture") and then regulations are created to preserve the incumbents dominant market position and/or business model.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[Archangel Michael]

There USED to be a good reason for many of them. Then they started being used to cull competition, raise prices and barriers to entry for no other reason than to make more money. This is why Taxi Medallions in certain cities are worth MILLIONS.

And from my experience, all the rules that supposedly are for "safety" and such, are more or less used a clubs and sledgehammers on competition, and doesn't actually apply to safety any longer. Technology has improved cars and safety to the point where much of those rules are just silly these days. Akin to keeping gloves in the glove box style rules (perhaps not that exactly, but you get the point) .

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[Knuckles]

I don't see the problem here.

The problem is that in Germany we generally (there are exceptions) don't like to let people die out i the streets because they made a stupid decision. These uninsured health bills will still get paid, by taxes.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[HornWumpus]

IIRC the last taxi medallion that was openly sold in NYC went for north of $500K. Hardly a miniscule fee.

If there were only 10,000 programmer medallions available in the USA, would you stop coding?

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

The plain fact is ALL OF MODERN LIFE IS MONEY.

Something largely perpetuated by greedy assholes -- otherwise known as Americans.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

ooh, poor uber. they have to have drivers pass an exam and get proper insurance. that's NOT anti-competitive.. that's actually extremely helpful to know exactly what they have to do to be legit...

but HERE is what's anti-competitive... (hint: its not the governments, or even the taxi drivers, doing this shit):

http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/1...
http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/0...
http://www.techhive.com/articl...

do not blindly go "ohh, poor uber. thats not fair'' every time a government takes a stand against them. they do NOT deserve the support. they should get a red hot poker shoved up their collective corporate asses for how they conduct their business... and then they should be banned for not having proper insurance, drivers licensed/permitted to carry passengers for hire, and regularly inspected vehicles... just as germany did... but globally.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[thedonger]

And that gets to the root of much of this, Uber supporters WANT it to be unfair out of some feeling that the incumbents must be keeping competition out through unfair means (not to say they are not in some areas), thus they are applying the anti-golden rule (do unto others as you suspect they are doing unto you)... or at minimal 'people with new gold should rule'

Uber will disappear if Uber drivers need to conform to the rules of taxi drivers (including caps on the number of drivers and medallion prices). I can drive my own car around, say, NYC. I can drive my car around NYC with friends in it. I can even drive my car around NYC with strangers in it. But if I am using the Uber driver app and they are using the Uber passenger app then suddenly there is unfair competition? Well, I guess there is if you are the boss of a taxi union.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[DickBreath]

Aren't monopolies, bribes, dirty tricks, and protecting obsolete business models within the laws of nature? Aren't things done by horrible people within the laws of nature?

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

The NYC medallions are transferable property, so the fee for the medallion doesn't go to the city, it goes to the seller.

To be fair (you're responding to my post), in San Francisco the permit sticker (equivalent to NYC medallion) is non-transferable, so you're paying ~$150,000 to the city. But it's not a real source of income to the city, because they city rarely issues new ones, and turn-over is low. Usually what happens is 3 or 4 guys put up the money together, and also some banks will issue business loans to acquire the permit.

So, again, the whole point of the monopoly is to benefit taxi drivers. It's definitely not a taxation scam by the city or state; not in any way, shape, or form. You can research the history yourself. IIRC it started in either NYC or maybe Chicago, because prior to these schemes everybody with four wheels and an engine would pretend to be a taxi. It didn't provide a stable income, which meant there were serious quality and consistency issues.

I'm just pointing out the facts in the hopes of pointing out some cognitive dissonance here. I don't personally have any strong opinions wrt Uber. Times have changed, and it would be wrong to simple argue that without these regulations we would necessarily revert to the bad old times. But you can't simply ignore their function, either. And that doesn't even get into the whole insurance issue.

Uber, Lyft, etc drivers absolutely-fscking-lutely should be properly insured, often times they're not, and that's just plain wrong.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

"suddenly there is unfair competition?"

It's not the app. Yes, you can drive people around the city in your car, but once you start charging them to take them somewhere, you are operating a taxi service.

Either we overregulate these services and all taxi companies should be able to operate in an unregulated manner, or we have sufficient regulation and therefore Uber must play by the rules. But the status quo is certainly neither fair nor sustainable.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[spire3661]

And those regulations have been unfairly corrupted to feed a few players. DO not bleat on about fairness when the industry in question is unabashedly corrupt. ANYONE that wants to drive a taxi should be able to secure licensing from the city for a NOMINAL fee.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[ultranova]

In Socialist Germany, market corners YOU!

In Europe trying to refute an action by calling it socialist doesn't work.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[nospam007]

"It's not the app. Yes, you can drive people around the city in your car, but once you start charging them to take them somewhere, you are operating a taxi service."

Not at all. There have been things called 'Mitfahrzentralen' (Travel with somebody) for decades in Germany (complete with apps etc) where you can post your desired road trip and people who drive that way can take them as passengers to share the costs.

The only difference here is the definition what the real 'costs' are.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[lgw]

The dirty tricks you listed all take the same form: excluding people from the market. If you believe that we all have a fundamental right to buy and sell and provide services and otherwise participate in commerce, then the only discussion is how best to approach that ideal. Laws that grant monopolies or create significant barriers to entry are wholly bad under that lens.

Of course there's a tension there between that freedom and a different set of dirty tricks: fraud and unsafe products. There's very little dissent, outside of the extreme corners of libertarianism, that regulations to insure some sort of minimum quality/safety are good in principle. But it's quite odd how, whenever someone suggests that the market is unduly restricted by heavy-handed government monopoly granting, the speaker is accused of wanting to destroy safety regulations.

If you want a market where it's easy for anyone to participate, you want both minimum-possible government barriers to entry and a significant government role in fraud prevention and safety. It's not a "more vs less government" argument at all, really. That's just a distraction. The real question is "given that we need some government role in product safety and fraud prevention, how do we prevent that grant of power to the government from being twisted and corrupted into monopoly-granting?"

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[nospam007]

Uber has already posted a press release that they won't give a shit and that they will ignore the restraining order.

(German article about Uber's response)
http://www.spiegel.de/wirtscha...

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[powerlord]

IIRC the last taxi medallion that was openly sold in NYC went for north of $500K. Hardly a miniscule fee.

If there were only 10,000 programmer medallions available in the USA, would you stop coding?

Try ~$1m.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/about/average_medallion_price.shtml

Granted, thats for a yellow medallion.
For an "Outer Borough Taxi" permit (all of NYC except Manhattan below 110th St on the west side and 96th St on the east side), it costs $1500 for three years (in addition to already being a licensed TLC Operator).

You're a little off in your analogy though, If you want to compare buying a taxi medallion to something in the programming world, then its equivalent to running your own Start Up. In that case financing and business models apply.

Programmers would be equivalent to the drivers that work for the TLC licensed shops (including those that hold medallions). Trust me, if you want to drive, you can, of course you might need to actually get a hack license (which Ironically you don't need to program).

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[swillden]

And that gets to the root of much of this, Uber supporters WANT it to be unfair out of some feeling that the incumbents must be keeping competition out through unfair means

I think it's more that the rules don't make sense for Uber, but did -- and do -- make sense for the incumbents, unless the incumbents also change their model. Let me explain.

The reason for all of the old rules is that they were necessary to ensure that the cab services were trustworthy. There was no way for users to find out whether or not a random cab was reputable and trustworthy, so government intervened to regulate. The regulations vary, but their ultimate goal is to erect obstacles to becoming a cab service, as well as to identify who the "legitimate" services are, and punish anyone who doesn't jump through the hoops. All of this means that if you see a cabbie with a medallion, you know that he's serious about building and maintaining a long-term business, and that he's identifiable to the government, which means he isn't going to rob you or rip you off. Whatever he could get that way is miniscule compared to his investment in his business, so it's not worth it.

But the Internet changes that. Riders now have another mechanism for determining the trustworthiness of a random car offering them a ride, if it's affiliated with a ride service, or even if it's just registered on some sort of reputation site (though in that case getting into a car which hasn't yet established a good reputation is extremely risky). So given that there is another solution to the problem that motivated the original requirements, it doesn't makes sense to impose the requirements on users of the new solution.

Fairness dictates that the incumbents also be able to take advantage of the new approach, of course. And there's nothing stopping them. But they don't want to because they like their business the way it is.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[gweihir]

That could get very ugly for them. If they are smart, they will comply.
They can however get full (and that means full) compensation for all economic loss caused by this temporary injunction.

Also note that a temporary injunction is granted without careful consideration of the evidence and at the risk of the party asking for it.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

You already got the reply which is obvious to most people who are informed of how industrialized countries work - i.e. because health care is paid for by taxes - but there's also the fact that an unlicensed, unregulated industry can promise you anything and you won't know until it's too late. An accident in which a healthy, well-educated person at the prime of his or her life becomes paralyzed from the neck down is pretty costly for society. No more taxes paid by him or her and lots and lots of medical expenses and other costs associated with ensuring that such a person has the best life possible under those circumstances. Everybody is myopic when they get a taxi - they take the one that they get the fastest.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[Altrag]

Because every cabbie will sit there waiting for you while you pull out your phone, browse to some random website, check their cab# or drivers license# or whatever detail you need (oh yeah, and they may have to provide you with some of that themselves) and finally decide whether or not to get in the car.

That's a lot of patience (and depending on how long it takes you, possibly a lot of time/money) that the cabbie has to sit there on the off chance that their latest review wasn't some dickhead who decided to post a negative review primarily due to their accent rather than their driving abilities or other actually important statistics.

Internet reviews are great if you've got the time to sit there shopping around.. not so much if you need an answer right away.

Perhaps someone will convince all the cabbies to paint a QR code on their cab that can just be scanned in and then sites can go directly to the cab in question. That would certainly make the process more tenable but I don't know how you'd convince cabbies to bother with it.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[swillden]

Perhaps someone will convince all the cabbies to paint a QR code on their cab that can just be scanned in and then sites can go directly to the cab in question. That would certainly make the process more tenable but I don't know how you'd convince cabbies to bother with it.

QR code, image of license plate number, Wifi/blueooth beacon... there are lots of options. Cabbies may not want to do any of this, of course, in fact they probably won't. But that's no reason to impede progress by other people who are more open to change.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[Dan667]

problem is that the traditional taxi services are not meeting demand or Uber and Lyft would not be able to grow this fast. In a number of markets taxi's will just outright refuse to make short trips so part of this is also the monopoly that taxi's enjoy that they are abusing. More competition is good.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[drinkypoo]

Taxis are commercial services and part of their fees are used to maintain roads and public facilities they use more heavily than private drivers.

They use them more frequently, but they don't use them any more heavily. If you were taxing vehicles based on the damage they do to the road, buses and trucks would pay basically all the taxes, and passenger vehicles would pay basically none.

They are also required to provide equal access and maintain a certain percentage of handicap accessible vehicles available at all times.

The former is an issue, but cabbies are well-known to choose their fares racially in many countries, why wouldn't they do the same in Germany? It's very difficult to prove. As for accessibility, the market will provide if competition is permitted. The only reason to have such a requirement is that licensed taxis were collectively granted a monopoly on transport for hire, and this restriction on competition in the market prevents market forces from working.

They also have to carry the proper insurance because if they skirted the law on this point, the rest of us would end up paying.

This is solved easily enough with laws requiring more insurance for hire vehicles, and doesn't require a taxi permit system.

Re: Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

And, the uber driver isn't going your way. The uber driver comes to you and takes you to a destination of your choosing as part of a business transaction.

It's such a subtle difference it is not surprising for kids to not grasp the concept.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[demonlapin]

UberX may violate those rules, but Uber Black and SUV are standard liveried car services with commercial driver's licenses and insurance. The difference between them and taxis is that taxis can be hailed from the street, while car services have to be dispatched.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[Firethorn]

There USED to be a good reason for many of them. Then they started being used to cull competition, raise prices and barriers to entry for no other reason than to make more money. This is why Taxi Medallions in certain cities are worth MILLIONS.

Good points. Let's look at Taxi Medallions. Now, when they were originally implemented the idea was that there were too many taxis on the roads clogging things up. So let's restrict the number, move more people to public transit. Except that the cities keep expanding and issuing NEW medallions becomes extremely hard because you have these hugely wealthy taxi companies that hold most of the medallions that realize that every new medallion issued reduces the value of their existing ones.

In NYC at least as a result you have 'livery services' which are essentially taxis that aren't allowed to stop for 'flags' on the street. IE you call one up, negotiate a price over the phone(or internet) and the car will come pick you up at a designated time and drop you off. There are additional complexities involving airports, of course.

By the same token, for the longest time the only vehicle that was considered 'suitable' for a NYC cab was a special stretch Crown Vic, apparently under concerns about leg space that assumed both the driver and passengers were all NBA athletes.

As is, new 'taxicab of the future', a Nissan NV200, has some issues because it's not handicapped accessible.

Personally, I think it'd be cheaper to simply subsidize a number of cars to have the ability and use them on a call out basis so they're no more expensive than taxis. Same with apartments, really. Requiring 100% of apartments be wheelchair accessible is more expensive than simply giving the population in wheelchairs free handicapped apartments.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber, Lyft, etc drivers absolutely-fscking-lutely should be properly insured, often times they're not, and that's just plain wrong.

There's a relatively easy fix for that. If a Uber, Lyft, etc. driver isn't properly insured, then make the dispatcher responsible. I.e. if a Uber driver gets in an accident, then Uber is on the hook to pay damages. The first time that Uber finds itself paying off a multimillion dollar judgement, they will find a new devotion to proof of insurance.

I suspect that this is already true. I know that whenever I delivered pizzas, I had to provide proof of insurance to the shop.

There's nothing magical about insurance. It's just a company promising to compensate for monetary damages. It doesn't make drivers less likely to get in accidents or protect others from injury. Uber is a company; they can provide that compensation as well as an insurance company would. Perhaps better -- insurance companies can limit their liability. As a principal, Uber would be on the hook as much as the driver and has much deeper pockets.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[flayzernax]

Indeed, and not all taxi permit systems are anti competative. But most laws and business regulations are in most places I've read about or researched.

So it stands to reason that a company who disagrees and works around the laws. Is not necessarily being anti competative, when the other taxi companies COULD do the same. But more than likely they lobbied to get this changed with their local or foreign congress critter type.

This is exactly how the music and automotive and fuel/gas/oil industries work.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[pete6677]

Blaben splebenglausen!

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

The 1m is for companies that typically employ 3 shifts of drivers to keep the car working around the clock. Given the revenue of each shift the medallion pays for itself in a few years. The reality of how taxis are financed is more complicated than tossing around the 1m price tag as a lame debate tactic.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

No, of course you don't. That's what the showers and ovens are for: to keep them clean and warm.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[davester666]

well, there is a good reason for having a limited number of licenses, such as having too many taxis, which has happened, and then it becomes a "that's my customer, no that's MY customer" thing.

simply put, Uber is going for a reset of the taxi system, and wants to ignore ALL the existing regulations, but there is a VERY good reason for most of the regulations for the taxi industry.

they don't want to fix it, they want to be it. where 'it' is a taxi system that is regulated by Uber.

and THAT would be train wreck.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[hholzgra]

In Socialist Germany, we only now start to discover the concept of minimum wages ... go figure ...

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[Vik1ng]

The only difference here is the definition what the real 'costs' are

Gas + wear&tear is not that complicated to at least get a good estimate. What Uber charges is going to be far above that otherwise not driver would operate for them

Re: Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Nba athletes? You are having a laugh. Usa taxis are like reverse tardis' : huge on the outside but with passenger seats smaller than a budget airline. So much worse than a real taxi.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically Uber is a minicab operation, rather than a true taxi firm, but they (and Lyft, etc.) have eliminated the main drawbacks of using minicabs and so made them a real competitor to normal taxis. Minicabs are often subjected to less rigorous licensing rules, and are generally exempted from fare regulation, but can't tout for trade, carry "taxi signs", use cab ranks, and so on. I agree that Uber should be regulated as a minicab service (if they are regulated in the relevant jurisdiction), but not as a taxi service.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

In some places you can charge them, provided they call you and ask you to. In many others, you have to have special licensing and insurance, but are less restricted than a true taxi (and there aren't usually restrictions on numbers of minicabs, nor fixed fares). What Uber have done is substitute ringing around a load of small and poorly advertised firms with placing an order on a single well-publicised website, but they're still operating as a minicab dispatcher.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just a nominal fee - fees for licences, etc. should be no more than the actual cost of registering the licence, printing cards, etc., unless there is an actual ongoing cost to the government from your activities (say, needing extra police for a large parade).

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Taxis are commercial services and part of their fees are used to maintain roads and public facilities they use more heavily than private drivers

We should be charging a per-km fee based on GVM-axle loading, vehicle area, and maximum delivered torque to cover the costs of road usage. That not only fixes this, it levels the playing field between road transport and other modes (and if the government wants to offer direct subsidies, it can do so openly and transparently). Even just transferring all roads to a Roads Trust and only allowing that to pay opex from fuel tax^H^H^H levy would be a reasonable approximation.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[dave420]

There is a more substantial difference, though. The concept of mitfahrgelegenheit ('car sharing', essentially) allows people who are travelling a certain route anyway pick up passengers. Those drivers are not being hired or chartered - they are simply sharing a pre-existing journey that would have been driven anyway. The drivers can recoup fuel costs and maybe a little more, but that's it. No-one is allowed to make a living from it, as far as I understand.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[dave420]

The level of training German taxi drivers go through is far more rigorous than just paying for a medallion. In the US your argument makes a lot of sense (the taxis I've had in the US have usually been terrible), but in Germany it's just not the German way. Taxi drivers are highly regulated, and part of that is the extended driving test and accreditation process, which provides a great taxi service.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[Stuarticus]

One of the things that is often overlooked is that the market can only sustain so many taxis, while everyone rages at the cost of the medallions constituting a barrier to entry (is the cost of buying a shop a barrier to entry?). If the number of drivers isn't regulated then there will be booms and busts in provision where the number of drivers will go up as people buy in, then there are too many drivers so some are going to go bust from sitting around doing nothing (wasting petrol and taking up space while they do). When there are fewer drivers you can't get a taxi (and if prices are unregulated the cost will rise horribly). Basically regulation is necessary or the whole system will become a clusterfuck.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[swillden]

The level of training German taxi drivers go through is far more rigorous than just paying for a medallion. In the US your argument makes a lot of sense (the taxis I've had in the US have usually been terrible), but in Germany it's just not the German way. Taxi drivers are highly regulated, and part of that is the extended driving test and accreditation process, which provides a great taxi service.

So what?

Why should riders not be allowed to choose lesser service at a lower price if that's what they prefer?

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[swillden]

By your argument we need to regulate the number of dairies and cows or there will be boom and bust cycles of milk availability in the grocery store. After all, there are substantial barriers to entry in getting into the dairy business. That's ridiculous, of course, because the fact is that optimizing such marginal differences in provisioning and pricing is what markets are best at. Markets have their disadvantages but this area, specifically, is where they really shine and have been proven to be vastly more efficient and responsive than central planning.

It's possible that there is something about taxi service that demands central planning, but you haven't identified it, so if we were to accept your argument then we'd have to conclude that every industry with non-trivial barriers to entry must be regulated at least as tightly as taxi service. Indeed, most industries have far higher barriers to entry.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[spire3661]

""that's my customer, no that's MY customer"" Uber eliminates this problem nicely. Also, If cabbies are fighting, use the POLICE, not restrict who can be a cabbie. You are making excuses for a corrupt business. The time to end it is NOW.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that taxi service should be regulated but you can't ignore that in all major taxi markets are completely, totally corrupt. I literally can't think of a better example of an entrenched interest defending rent-seeking behavior through regulatory capture. In NY it's a century old institution. If it's on the list of anticompetative practice, the tax industry has it perfected, and did so before your parents were born.

Uber and lyft and company really don't have a choice but to crash full steam ahead and hope to come out ahead after the fallout. Going through the "regular" channels will get them nowhere. I don't expect some free-for-all fantasy in the end, just something better than what we have now.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell you what, you buy a cow and start selling milk, see how you go.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[swillden]

Tell you what, you buy a cow and start selling milk, see how you go.

Heh. Actually I've worked a dairy farm. And there were no government-issued medallions, and yet things worked out just fine.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[mjwx]

"suddenly there is unfair competition?"

It's not the app. Yes, you can drive people around the city in your car, but once you start charging them to take them somewhere, you are operating a taxi service.

Either we overregulate these services and all taxi companies should be able to operate in an unregulated manner, or we have sufficient regulation and therefore Uber must play by the rules. But the status quo is certainly neither fair nor sustainable.

The problem services like Uber have is that if they had to play by the rules they wont be any cheaper than taxi services.

Uber just started operating in Perth, Western Australia and it's more expensive than taking a properly insured taxi with a licensed driver. Uber X is marginally cheaper if there is little to no traffic but Uber X dont operate here.

I have no problem with new taxi services, but I expect them to play by the rules. What happens if an Uber driver crashes and breaks the priceless Ming vase I happened to be transporting. In a regular taxi it would be covered by their liability insurance, with Uber, the driver has no such insurance and Uber will no doubt do everything they can to avoid paying and try to blame it on me. It would be up to me to take Uber to court for the money. If a taxi driver causes a serious accident due to dangerous, negligent or careless driving, they are stripped of their taxi drivers license... in fact the people who can no longer hold a taxi drivers license are probably driving for Uber right now.

Uber is not trying to change the system or even fight the system, it's trying ignore the system and this will never work because the system wont ignore Uber.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[davester666]

history. those who don't remember it are doomed to repeat it.

and "using a smartphone" doesn't make it new.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[hholzgra]

They are playing a two-way game in Germany,

* running UberBlack in (AFAIK) Berlin only, offering services in compliance with "Mietwagen" regulations
    -> that doesn't seem to work out well for them as the existing competition already coveres that market well

* running UberPop in several cities which doesn't play by the rules at all

And "not playing by the rules at all" on the Pop side is what they currently get slapped for,
the UberBlack offering is not affected, and they would be free to enter the "Taxi" market,
too (available taxi licenses are limited in a way slightly similar to yellow cabs in NYC,
but buying into that market would still be cheaper than the legal charges they are facing
now ...)

And last not least the german transportation law allows for execptinal licenses to
experiment with new models ... that would require negotiating with the authorities
about such an exception, and as far as I know they never even bothered to ask ...

Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[shiftless]

No, dumb ass.

Keep in mind they would not be facing these injunctions if they were playing by the same rules as the competition.

Keep in mind that the world would be 10,000,000x better place if these FUCKING STUPID "RULES", and the dumb asses who cheer for them, did not exist.

It is kinda like a street vender skipping on sales tax, of course they can offer lower prices if they do not have to pay taxes, but that is pretty unfair to the stores that are collecting it.

You know what's really unfair? TAXATION. It's equivalent to armed robbery. Only the stupid pay taxes.

walk or ride a bike

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck uber

Re:walk or ride a bike

[Noah Haders]

down with uber! up with buggy whips!

Re:walk or ride a bike

[Jason Levine]

Tried the new Uber Buggy Whip service. I was picked up by my ride - and by "picked up", I mean harnessed to the front of a carriage and then whipped until I pulled the carriage where I wanted to go.

Cons: The whipping hurt and the carriage was heavy.

Pros: I lost 5 pounds and the bag of oats they strapped to my mouth were tasty.

Rating: 3 1/2 stars. Might use again to help shed those holiday pounds.

Misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no "ruling", there is a preliminary injunction -- the court hasn't ruled anything. Also, this injunction only affects the "Uber Pop" service, which is only one of the services Uber offers in Germany.

ITT...

[Anonymous Coward]

... Yanks getting angry that US companies have to follow the laws of the countries they operate in.

Re:ITT...

[jellomizer]

Well a lot of these countries have rules that are made to prevent US companies from gaining traction there. Sure they hide it in terms of safety or something else the normal electorate can swallow but if you look at the details of the laws it is in essence an FU America law.

Re:ITT...

[kruach aum]

It's more "FU people who think profit uber alles is the right way to do business" laws. That you identify that as uniquely American is pretty telling.

Re:ITT...

[number17]

And Virginia, California, and Colorado are at the top of the "FU America Law".

I heard that Virginia once tried to break up the US and even went to war with them! How un-American they are.

Re:ITT...

[halivar]

No, protectionism is all about "profit uber alles", just not fer them damn ferner's. And Europe in particular is a little chauvinist in this regard.

Re:ITT...

[moronoxyd]

How so?
The rules in question here are questions of insurance, of proper training for drivers, of car maintenance... the same rules that cab drivers and companies in Germany have been following for many years.
How are these rules 'made to prevent US companies from gaining traction'?

Unless of course, having local law that everybody (local companies as well as US companies) have to follow is preventing US companies in your eyes. I mean, sure, they are not used to actually having to follow laws they don't like. It's real mean of European governments and regulators to actually check whether companies follow the law...

Re:ITT...

[Anonymous Coward]

>it is in essence an FU America law.

Or... maybe an "Let's no become a corporate state."-law. A "Let's value privacy, data protection, social security, universal healthcare"-law. A "let's make sure, someone can live off their work"-law. And if a business can't find traction because of that, maybe it's a business with shitty practices and I don't weep a tear for it.

Re:ITT...

[angel'o'sphere]

If you look at the details of this laws you will realize, no one even knew about the unitied states when those laws where crafted.
You just where a backyard country 6000km ( cough cough 4000 miles) away over the atlantic ocean.
Granted, some of our grand parents brothers and sisters emigrated to there ... so we do actually know that that country exists. For you guys europe was long a myth, turning reality in WW I and more so in WW II and now you believe it is your 53rd state of the union. Hint: it is not.

Many people here in europe indeed have a FU america attitude, but that is against your country, your nation, your governement, your corporations (which Uber happens to be one) not against 'you'. Individual americans are very welcome here.

After all they are usually polite, educated and curious. Unlike the average american /. poster who thinks his country is the navel of the world and the world is rotating around that navel.

Re:ITT...

[moronoxyd]

This isn't about protectionism.
This is about countries having laws and expecting everybody to follow them.
Sure, US companies are not used to do that, but that is a problem of the US, not of the other countries.

Germany has laws regulating persons and companies that want to be active in the transport business. These laws where not made to keep US companies out. The laws are a lot older than Uber. They are there to protect consumers and give them a certain amount of safety.
Ubers profits are not more important than everybodies safety.

Re:ITT...

[DiamondGeezer]

+1 Informative

The hype around Uber and the low prices is based on not paying for proper insurance, permits, qualifications or ensuring the maintenance of the cars. It's unfair competition by undermining businesses by purposely ignoring laws passed by the democratic will of the people.

It's called "anti-competitive dumping" and its purpose is to drive lawful services out of the market.

Re:ITT...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, protectionism is all about "profit uber alles", just not fer them damn ferner's. And Europe in particular is a little chauvinist in this regard.

This is not about protectionism (of a market), but protectionism towards the cutomer, and thus NOT "profit uber alles".

I think, this critique against Uber is unfounded, sincer Uber only provides contacts and NOT transportation services. Perhaps Uber's only mistake is that it doesn't state this clear enough.

But there are laws and regulations for transportation services that are meant to protect the cutomer almost everywhere -- not only in Europe.

Re:ITT...

[hsmith]

"Low prices" - what? Uber by all accounts is more expensive than traditional cabs.

Re:ITT...

[geogob]

Yes, its obvioue that laws regulating taxi services in Gemany have been in fact thought out to block business of american companies. And obviously, New York managed admirably to achive the same goal.

Re:ITT...

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming that protecting the transportation lobbies is a form of peoples democracy is absurd in itself.

Re:ITT...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be cautious about that. It was the US who spent their resources on guard duty so Europe could focus just on economic growth without having to worry about the bad people. Now that the US can't/won't/can't afford to police while Europe parties, Europe is going to have problems that can't be dealt with in a courtroom or a UN meeting. The Bear is scratching on the eastern door (that "sick man of Europe" seems to not be so ill these days), and Spain is in the sights to be a caliphate state.

Enjoy your prosperity and FU Amerika [sic] attitude while it lasts. The Yanks are likely not in a position to be saving you when the barbarians come, and your leaders are all "peace at any cost" Chamberlains, when you need Churchills at this point in time.

Not to say that the US is perfect, nor that the behavior of businesses is something to be lauded... but Europe and the US are dependent on each other. France saved the US in the 18'th century, the US returned the favor in the 20'th, and it might be that both sides will be having to band together again should the Pacific Rim go hot, or Russia decides it prefers the 1945 treaty over the current one and takes its chunk of Germany back.

Oh, and we Yanks know kilometers and metric units. Would be nice to finally ditch the Imperial system once and for all.

Re:ITT...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well a lot of these countries have rules that are made to prevent US companies from gaining traction there. Sure they hide it in terms of safety or something else the normal electorate can swallow but if you look at the details of the laws it is in essence an FU America law.

Utter bullshit.

Re:ITT...

[moronoxyd]

These permits, insurances ect. are there to protect the customers of the taxi service.

If a Uber driver causes an accident, what will happen?
His private car insurance will not cover any damages he incurred while driving his car for profit, and it's very unlikely that he has the kind of money to pay damages for injuries out of his pocket.

Re:ITT...

[CrimsonAvenger]

and now you believe it is your 53rd state of the union

I'm curious - what do we believe are the 51st and 52nd States?

As to the Germans not knowing about the USA when those laws were written, at the time you think you're talking about, the USA was a "continent spanning nation, and to us, all the domains of the Hapsburgs are but a small thing"....

Re:ITT...

[Anonymous Coward]

Like the USA forbidding (at first) the Concorde from landing in US airports because of noise levels? Somehow they didn't care about the noise levels before dropping their own supersonic program.

Re:ITT...

[Anonymous Coward]

Our country our rules. If you don't like than you can go fuck yourself.

Re:ITT...

[angel'o'sphere]

51th Puerto Ricco (sp?) 52th Grenada or what ever actually is on your agenda.

Your continent wide 'empire' nevertheless had less humans than the 'Harbsburger domains' but nice that you know the name.

Re:ITT...

[spire3661]

"This isn't about protectionism. This is about countries having laws and expecting everybody to follow them.'

Why cant it be both?

Re:ITT...

[Knuckles]

Uber only provides contacts and NOT transportation services.

How do they get paid?

Re:ITT...

[HornWumpus]

If you think Russia is irritated with current sanctions. Just wait until we ship the Germans 10,000 metric tons of pig iron and 1 metric ton of weapons grade.

Putin would piss himself in public.

Re:ITT...

[rjstanford]

Uber is really two different service providers. There's "Uber Black" that provides usually very nice black car services with professional drivers at 20-40% higher rates than a taxi - I love this personally and use it a ton when I travel. Then there's UberX which tries to do the same with random individuals who own a car for 20-40% lower rates than a taxi. These two services have almost nothing to do with each other, and its the second one that everyone basically has a problem with.

Re:ITT...

[butchersong]

Is carpooling illegal in Germany? If not and I make an app that lets people meet others going the same place and also provides an escrow service to share gas costs is this illegal? I'm honestly curious where people think the line is here.

Re:ITT...

[thsths]

Actually in Germany the insurance *will* cover any damages, but it may try to recover the payment from the driver. Which seems perfectly reasonable to me. Of course drivers should pick the right insurance, just like I pay a bit extra to be able to use my car for normal business travel (not transportation).

Re:ITT...

[powerlord]

And surprise, surprise, it looks like Uber and New York aren't playing nicely ...

http://betabeat.com/2014/04/now-its-uber-in-attorney-generals-sights/

Re:ITT...

[thsths]

It is a bit borderline, but I don't think it is illegal. The difference is that car pooling is not for profit. Even if you are nice and pay for it, it is typically just a contribution to the cost.

Re:ITT...

[Jahoda]

You do an excellent job of demonstrating your very-American mastery of arrogant over-generalizations. (What is particularly amusing is that you are German). Like most Americans, I am deeply upset by what has become of our government (perhaps you have some parts of your own history to which you can relate), and corporatism is a disease that the whole world must solve. But that doesn't change the fact that the only single reason you live in such an enlightened, prosperous nation and *IS* the United States of America and its dedication of resources to the security and democracy of your nation. I despise nationalism, but you ought to learn some manners.

Re:ITT...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the laws were in place long before Uber even existed?

Re:ITT...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, protectionism is all about "profit uber alles", just not fer them damn ferner's. And Europe in particular is a little chauvinist in this regard.

This is not about protectionism (of a market), but protectionism towards the cutomer, and thus NOT "profit uber alles".

I think, this critique against Uber is unfounded, sincer Uber only provides contacts and NOT transportation services. Perhaps Uber's only mistake is that it doesn't state this clear enough.

But there are laws and regulations for transportation services that are meant to protect the cutomer almost everywhere -- not only in Europe.

As Uber provide the booking mechanism for the ride, facilitate the ride and take a percentage of the ride they most definitely DO provide transportation services, the fact that they contract out the drivers doesn't make them less of a transportation service.

Re:ITT...

[angel'o'sphere]

I only try to adapt to the level of manners and arrogance and generalization we usually see here :D

Re:ITT...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who do you think lobbied to get those laws instated..? Could it have been the established companies in their respective market..?

They will always find a suitable noble argument for the politics they lobby for, but the main drive to get such laws instated is very rarely anything else than making damn sure we keep making good money...

The most rediculous example of finding excuses nowadays is publishing businesses pushing for internet censorship based on the outrageous lie that child porn would be spread in the open on the internet. So they can get the govt to give them power to censor out blogs which people are reading nowadays.

Good. How is uber any different...

[Viol8]

... from someone hitching a lift on the side of the road and paying for the ride? Taxis should be licensed otherwise you could end up getting in a car with any uninsured nutcase driving some unsafe POS.

Re:Good. How is uber any different...

[Anonymous Coward]

so? caveat emptor

Re:Good. How is uber any different...

[Anonymous Coward]

you talkin' to me?

Re:Good. How is uber any different...

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that they are ordering a ride thru a service provider from pickup point A to destination B and then paying the service provider and the driver is the small difference to hitching and paying.

Re:Good. How is uber any different...

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Interesting enough, Germany DOES have services for people hitching long distance rides:

http://www.mitfahrzentrale.de/...

http://www.mitfahrgelegenheit....

So it will be interesting to see how the courts explain how these services are different.

"Ve haf vays, of making you valk!"

Re:Good. How is uber any different...

[poity]

I'm willing to bet that compared to traditional taxi customers, far more Uber customers would have smartphones with GPS in hand, meaning a much higher risk of being caught by police. You would have better odds painting your car, masquerading as a traditional taxi, and picking out old people to rob.

Re:Good. How is uber any different...

[just_another_sean]

Walk where? Er, valk vere I mean?

Re:Good. How is uber any different...

[Rhywden]

It's a grey area and the companies you link already have had some problems. However, the companies themselves already link the limits on their sites themselves:

• No cars with more than 9 seats
• No profit making - the money you collect may not exceed the costs you incur for gas and car usage (deprecation)
• No regular routes
• No drivers who make this kind of driving their job.

Re:Good. How is uber any different...

[Noah Haders]

I don't know the deets about uber in Germany, but in US all drivers have insurance through uber and private insurance. all trips are tracked, uber handles all the metering and charging so there are no games with the meter. All drivers are individually vetted before starting and are reviewed by the passenger after each ride. With too many bad reviews a driver is summarily fired. All in all, it is a very robust and passenger-oriented experience.

most "licensing" schemes are in place to protect the taxi drivers union and get fees for local government. it has nothing to do with passenger safety or comfort.

Re:Good. How is uber any different...

[moronoxyd]

So it will be interesting to see how the courts explain how these services are different.

The decision explicitely mentions the fact that Uber and the drivers are doing it for profit.
The Mitfahrzentralen work on a no profit basis, and the drivers don't make a profit either and would drive that way anyway.

Re:Good. How is uber any different...

[bluefoxlucid]

Well, for one, Uber has about 10 times as much insurance coverage as a taxi--a million dollars, instead of $25,000 to $100,000. Slugging and hitching have Guest PIP at $5000.

Uber also has traceability. Every Uber charter has passenger, driver, and time centrally logged. Passengers can comment on drivers, and drivers can comment on passengers. There's a rating system. A rapist will expose themselves to a hard evidence chain establishing where they were and that they were with the accuser, as well as a rating of "1 Star, Driver raped me, would not ride again".

Re:Good. How is uber any different...

[angel'o'sphere]

Erm, what exactly is to see or interesting to see there?
'Mitfahrgelegenheiten' allow it that a person who is traveling from A to B picks up another person that wants to go to B, and shares the fuel costs.

Uber is a commercial service where one person says it wants to go from A to B and another 'semi private' person agrees 'I have nothing better to do' and I can 'lift him for fuel payment and an extra payment(which I will share with Uber, my employer, cough cough).

And no once for ever, get it finally: we are not in the USA here where you have to call a court for every fart to decide 'oh, what might a court have to say in this, or that?'.

We have fucking written laws where 95% of everything you will ever encounter in your life is already determined and fixed. The situation as you always shout: 'lets see what the court says to x or y, or the GPL' simply does not exist here. In Europe it was never a question if 'the GPL would hold up in court' ... how can you be so brain dead? Sure, if you want to sue your neighbour because he did not cut his tree and a branch is going over into your garden, or if he sues you because you took an apple from that branch ... then you are in 'court law' (as opposite to book law) area ... but most of such disputes already happened hundreds if mot thousands of times. (No, your neighbour is usually not required to cut such a branch, and yes, the apples growing on your side you can pick for your own. However if the branch exceeds certain limits or is simply 'annoying' e.g. over a swimming pool, your neighbour is required to cut it)

Re:Good. How is uber any different...

[spire3661]

And no once for ever, get it finally: we are not in the USA here where you have to call a court for every fart to decide 'oh, what might a court have to say in this, or that?'.

Do you know why this is? Because we value Liberty, fiercely.

Re:Good. How is uber any different...

[curious.corn]

Yeah: the Liberty to peck at each other while you're getting casseroled! ( See "capponi di Renzo" under http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...)

Re:Good. How is uber any different...

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Well, I actually don't understand how Uber started operating in the first place. In Germany, before you start operating a business, it needs to be registered (Gewerbe anmelden). Did Uber say that they were running a taxi service? Or did they fudge it as something else? If it was clear that they were running a taxi service, they would have been informed that they would have to follow the regulations for taxi services. Or did Uber just ignore this?

Usually when a company opens up business in a foreign country, they hire a local consultant, most likely a law firm, to make sure that the business will not run afoul of local laws. I don't understand how Uber was allowed to start operating at all, if what they are doing is illegal.

And in this case . . . it DOES look like they were allowed to operate . . . until a court made a decision that they must stop.

Re:Good. How is uber any different...

[angel'o'sphere]

Sure, your liberty was what O J Simpson got away with murder.
Or what the Furguson cop will get away with or what the cop who killed a cyclist while reading emails get away with ...
So what exactly has liberty to do with codified law versus court law? Nothing, except that in your law system stupid, corrupt, incompetent (or however the actual situation is) jury members can easily convict an innocent one or let a guilty one get away. Not to even mention if thete is a prosecution at all?
The price for your liberty is that 20% of the executed people in your prisons are innocent.
The price for your liberty is that children kill each other, or the shooting trainer, with guns, rofl. (Sad, but honestly the shooting trainer got what he deserved)
The price for your liberty, and that is the sadest point is: you belive you have more liberties than anyone else on the world. True in your country perhaps, not true if you are outside of it.
Hint: another /. story roughly around 1997. An american school class was in Paris, with their teachers. The teachers allowed them to drink some wine. The teachers got sued in the USA, for 'giving alcohol to minors'. Hm, did you ever consider that in Paris Frensh laws are valid, and European laws, and not US laws? So much to liberty ...
Or the story on /. about a 14 year old girl sending a picture of her 'chest' via a mobile phone to her BF and both got prosecuted for 'child porn'? Liberty fuck my ass.
Your country is the most retarded on the world, besides some few islamic extremes perhaps.
You can get executed for murder if you are at least 12 yo.
You can vote with 18 yo.
You can go to the army with 16 yo (or even 14 if parents permit)
You may have sex with 18 (I wonder how the 16 yo get pregnant)
You may drink allcohol with 21 (how retarded is that?)
You may drive with 16 .... oki, that is a liberty, now you got me!
Some states allow weapons for children, don't know the age, seems there is no limit. Do your border signs have a signiture: "be aware, you may be shot by a 9 year old if he does not like your face"?
Liberty my ass ...

Re:Good. How is uber any different...

[dunkelfalke]

In Germany, car insurance has to cover at least EUR 7.5 million (that is USD 9.8 million) by law.

Re:Good. How is uber any different...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you serious or trolling?

The minimal coverage for Cars in Germany is 2,5 Million Euro for every person, and 50 to 100 Million Euro for 'general damages' (up to 15 Mio per capita).

Those are the coverages for _private_ cars.

If you are involved in any accident and caught operating a business your coverage is nil.

Business coverages are far higher and do also extend to related damages (f.e. not only refund for damaged luggage but also compensation if the passenger had to cancel his flight, business meeting..)

Re:Good. How is uber any different...

[gweihir]

To use these services, you sign a release for the driver. And you have to book in advance. And the driver has to go where he/she is going anyways.

Not comparable.

Re:Good. How is uber any different...

[angel'o'sphere]

The point is registering a business and establishing a 'corporation' and finally running one are three different things.
At the moment you register one, no one checks if you actually are following regulations (how should that work anyway, no one can know who you employ later?)
Regulation checks come in when you start operating.

Re:Good. How is uber any different...

[angel'o'sphere]

The amount of seats is not relevant, the amount of passengers is.

Re:Good. How is uber any different...

[bloodhawk]

Well, for one, Uber has about 10 times as much insurance coverage as a taxi--a million dollars, instead of $25,000 to $100,000. Slugging and hitching have Guest PIP at $5000.

Uber also has traceability. Every Uber charter has passenger, driver, and time centrally logged. Passengers can comment on drivers, and drivers can comment on passengers. There's a rating system. A rapist will expose themselves to a hard evidence chain establishing where they were and that they were with the accuser, as well as a rating of "1 Star, Driver raped me, would not ride again".

Only in the USA are such low levels of insurance appropriate, in the rest of the world a million dollars for a taxi would mean the taxi is UNDERINSURED. most countries I am aware of require between $5 million-$10 million minimum, I believe Germany is even higher. $1 million is underinsured even for a private car.

Re:Good. How is uber any different...

[bluefoxlucid]

If you can read German, find the relevant information on UberDE and report back how many euros they cover.

Re:Good. How is uber any different...

[dunkelfalke]

There is nothing about insurance for German uber. Looks like they rely on the standard car insurance, but that is the point - it only covers non-commercial use and uber drivers may lose their insurance coverage due to breech of contract - and without insurance they aren't allowed on public roads.

Re:Good. How is uber any different...

[Rhywden]

If the number of seats is above 9 then you need a different driver's license in Germany. Everything above 9 already counts as a bus.

Re:Good. How is uber any different...

[angel'o'sphere]

You are wrong ... but that is your problem not mine. (I'm german btw. and posted plenty of links regarding the relevant laws in the previous discussions about Uber). In case you don't remember what what you answered to: the number of seats is irrelevant, it is the number of passengers.
For a bus you need actually in most 2 extra licenses, one to transport passengers and one because it is a truck. Perhaps that is what confuses you?
With a truck license I can drive empty busses as often as I want where ever I want, I don't need any "passenger transport license" and I can carry up to 8 (or was it 7?) passengers regardless of the amount of seats, the question if it counts as bus/truck or is a mini van.

Re:Good. How is uber any different...

[Rhywden]

That's nice. However, I originally quoted the rules of Mitfahrgelegenheit. And they specifically stated that THEY care about the number of seats.

Re:Good. How is uber any different...

[Rhywden]

Please look up Fahrerlaubnis-Verordnung (FeV) 6:

Klasse B:
Kraftfahrzeuge – ausgenommen Kraftfahrzeuge der Klassen AM, A1, A2 und A – mit einer zulässigen Gesamtmasse von nicht mehr als 3 500 kg, die zur Beförderung von nicht mehr als acht Personen außer dem Fahrzeugführer ausgelegt und gebaut sind (auch mit Anhänger mit einer zulässigen Gesamtmasse von nicht mehr als 750 kg oder mit Anhänger über 750 kg zulässiger Gesamtmasse, sofern 3 500 kg zulässige Gesamtmasse der Kombination nicht überschritten wird).

Re:Good. How is uber any different...

[angel'o'sphere]

Ah, sorry, did not notice that.
If they care, they are technically wrong. But well, demanding that a car has so few seats that a 'passenger transport license' never is an issue makes sense somehow as well.

Re:Good. How is uber any different...

[angel'o'sphere]

Yepp, that is a ordinary car driving license, not a 'passenger transportation permit', or more precisely it has nothing to do with a 'passenger transport permit'...
If you have more seats then first imho the truck driving license (for a bus) comes to play, and later the 'passenger transportation permit'.
Driving licenses and transportation permits are different issues. E.g. if you transport people commercially you need a 'passenger permit' regardless how many passengers you have and regardless what kind of car you drive.
However I was not aware that the type of car 'max 8 passengers' is already written in the driving license (I have an old one, where such limitations are not explicitly mentioned in the driving license, a so called class 3, well actually I have everything besides class 2 ... which are crafts which weight more than 7.5 tonns)

Re:Good. How is uber any different...

[Rhywden]

No. The seat limit is also written into the C driving license (trucks) and D driving licenses (busses). Look it up.

Re:Good. How is uber any different...

[angel'o'sphere]

Yeah, but it is not written into my (older) license.
Must be a new thing.
And changes nothing about the fact that driving licenses and 'person transportation licenses/permits' are two completely different things.
The only thing that is new to me is that a truck driver seems not to be allowed (according to you) to drive an empty bus, which sounds odd, but laws are often odd.

Uncompetitive?

[Bigby]

Do it for any reason other than being "uncompetitive". What the heck is so "uncompetitive"?

Re:Uncompetitive?

[Registered Coward v2]

Do it for any reason other than being "uncompetitive". What the heck is so "uncompetitive"?

It takes money from the taxi monopoly and the state doesn't get their cut of fees, taxes and licensing money. Can't have that so it must be uncompetitive.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[gurps_npc]

It might refer to Uber having their employees book fake rides on other taxi services, then cancelling.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[Anonymous Coward]

The drivers carry no taxi medallions, pass no certification or training, do not carry appropriate insurance and Uber has already been found to be engaged in anti-competitive practices by having their users order bogus rides on competing services and canceling them after the driver is en route, increasing the wait time and preventing the drivers from getting fares.

Fuck Uber, they are slime balls and give the peer economy a bad rap.
We are all better off without their ilk.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more along the lines of outright sabotage. Uber (or some of its more militant supporters) have started using the underhanded tricks that got Taxi firms regulated in the first place. Blocking competitors, vandalism, hoax bookings, that kind of thing.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[Anonymous Coward]

- no insurance in case of accidents (insurance for person transport costs about 10x what a normal car owner pays for his car alone)
- no rigorous technical car checks as they are required for cabs
- no transport obligation (a cab here HAS to transport you, even if you just want to go around the corner)
- no reliable costs (cabs here cost the same all the time, no matter whether it's an early morning in march or New Year's eve)
- no proper filing of taxes
- no right for the drivers to form a workers council, therefore dumping payment is to be expected
- no health insurance, no social insurance, no pension payments for the drivers ...shall I continue?

(it might be, that some of these points don't apply to US cabs as well, here they don't)

Re:Uncompetitive?

[Entropius]

Then haul their asses to court for fraud (hoax bookings) and the other real crimes they've committed, if they've committed any. But these problems have nothing to do with Uber's business model.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[Anonymous Coward]

This should have nothing to do with government regulation. If the taxi company can't come up with a way to deal with this, it's their problem.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

No, that's fraud, and should be treated as such.

I suppose victims of a DNS should just suck it up?

Re:Uncompetitive?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Have you ever had a scientific study of the "rigorous technical car checks"? (We will assume for the sake of argument they are useful in spotting problems.). And make sure the big companies are up to standard and not just bribing the official, who, coincidentally, applies a rigorous standard to tiny and independents, oh, another problen. Get it fixed and I will recheck in a month.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[zAPPzAPP]

This is pretty much what 'unlauterer Wettbewerb' means:
Fighting competition through illegal means, or gaining unfair advantage by not following the rules of the business.
And it was decided by a court.

So there.. exactly what you wanted.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[Entropius]

I live in a large US city (the District of Columbia) with both a conventional regulated taxi service and Uber/Lyft.

Let me look at your points one at a time:

--Insurance: The auto insurance market is developing insurance policies for these sorts of drivers. In any case, I imagine that the average Uber driver is a better driver than I am (it's her job, and just a means of transport for me); when I accept a ride from a driver, I know she might wreck and hurt me. If she does, her personal liability insurance (which she's required by law to carry, like any driver) will cover some of the cost, and my medical insurance will cover the rest.

--Technical inspections: Uber drivers' cars have to be no more than two years old. Technical inspections are required for *all* cars here.

--Reliable costs: Reliable costs mean unreliable service. Once there was an unexpected snowstorm and my mother needed a ride to the airport. There were no city taxicabs anywhere, but we could get her a ride on Uber, albeit for double the cost. Price signals let buyers and sellers communicate supply and demand, and are a good thing.

--Proper filing of taxes: Uber drivers have to report revenue earned from their work to the American tax authorities, just like the fellow selling fruit out of a truck by the side of the road. Nobody wants to shut down fruit stands because they might cheat on their taxes.

--Drivers can indeed form a labor union if they want -- they can get together and collectively bargain with Uber through a representative. They haven't yet, but they could if they wanted.

--Many employees in the US don't get health insurance, Social Security payments, or pensions. As independent contractors, the drivers are responsible for taking care of themselves; many have second jobs that do have these perks, and all of them know that there's no health insurance going in. It's no different than someone who owns a small business: if they want health insurance they can buy it separately, and if they want a pension or social insurance they can save money.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[Entropius]

Well, good -- but this shouldn't extend to banning Uber or services like it.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[moronoxyd]

If they don't follow the laws that other companies in this business have to follow -- of course it should extend that far.

The fact that Uber explicitly says that they are going to ignore this court decision speaks volumes.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[bluefoxlucid]

- no insurance in case of accidents (insurance for person transport costs about 10x what a normal car owner pays for his car alone)

Actually, they have insurance, either commercial insurance held by the driver or a primary $1M liability and $1M uninsured motorist bodily injury policy provided by Uber itself.

- no rigorous technical car checks as they are required for cabs

They're as checked-out as any other car, i.e. the state puts them through a 2 year safety inspection on re-registration. My state doesn't do that; as I drive, I am faced with other drivers whose brakes or steering may spontaneously fail, causing them to veer into my car. The risk of me personally driving is roughly similar to the risk of riding with an un-inspected Uber driver.

- no transport obligation (a cab here HAS to transport you, even if you just want to go around the corner) - no reliable costs (cabs here cost the same all the time, no matter whether it's an early morning in march or New Year's eve)

That's part of business. Maybe the driver decides he wants to reject your request. You get whatever driver accepts for the fee you accept, or you call a chartered cab. Make those decisions on your own; you're free to reject the terms and charter a yellow cab.

- no proper filing of taxes

Seriously? Costs are centrally logged. There is an income audit trail. This is an IRS matter.

- no right for the drivers to form a workers council, therefore dumping payment is to be expected - no health insurance, no social insurance, no pension payments for the drivers ...shall I continue?

When you start a small business, you have to cover your own health and life insurance, as well as your own retirement; that money comes out of your income, which is now the income of the business. A start-up is a very personal part of your life, and its income reflects your income on a personal level--even though you can isolate them on a legal level. All of these insurances and benefits you're used to as an employee become your own responsibility.

Uber drivers have a much smaller chance of hitting it big with their Uber business model. That said, they are fully aware that Uber gives them no pension and no health insurance; however, it covers the cost of commercial insurance when they carry passengers, and it's a non-scheduled system where they can become active on a whim. It's a low barrier to entry for a second job or a job between jobs, and the conditions appeal to those who chose to use Uber to facilitate the sale of their services.

Uber isn't abusing its employees; they are providing subcontracted taxi drivers the ability to clock in and clock out at the touch of a button on their phone, anywhere they are, and to select their fare and their passengers at will. They are providing much more workplace freedom with reduction of other workplace benefits; if this model doesn't appeal, you can put in an application to Yellow Cab.

Re: Uncompetitive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you live in a land where companies get away with everything does not mean we want to.

Companies must be held accountable or they abuse the system as uber has displayed time and time again.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[tjansen]

That's a translation problem. This law allows companies to sue when competitors violate existing laws and regulations. Something like 'unfair competition' would be a better translation.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it should, because the law is for everyone.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously haven't driven in Germany.
The techincal checks are basically done (like everything here) rote and to the letter without fail.
Every aspect of the car must be checked front to back; and all parts originally installed (whether required for the vehicle to operate or not, such as A/C) must be servicable and in fully operational condition.
This is required of all vehicles, personal or commercial.
The only difference that I am aware of (not spending the time to look up the actual legal requirements right now) is that commercial vehicles are subject to the inspections more frequently (semi-annualy?) rather than the every 2-years for private vehicles.

Proving a negative is impossible; but surprise checks of fleets do happen by government-inspectors; and only rarely do cars get failed (and usually things like broken interior map-light causing the vehicle to fail; rather than something unconsciable not working like you see happen in the US)

Re:Uncompetitive?

[Entropius]

So, in other words, any law is a good law, even if it exists for the protection of a cartel?

Re:Uncompetitive?

[qbast]

Actually, they have insurance [uber.com], either commercial insurance held by the driver or a primary $1M liability and $1M uninsured motorist bodily injury policy provided by Uber itself.

"In The US, What Insurance Is Available If There's An Accident? [...]"

That's nice, but irrelevant in Germany.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[Knuckles]

1 mil is not much though: cause an accident with 2 passengers who remain maimed for life, and you have to pay for their care for the next 40 years, plus destroyed cars, road damage, whatever. Those things simply happen when you reach a certain scale of number of rides. A bog-standard private general liability insurance here gives you 6 mil coverage for like 5 EUR per month or so.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[Anonymous Coward]

> If the taxi company can't come up with a way to deal with this, it's their problem

So, if a competitor bombs the Uber HQ, then it is Uber's problem?

Re:Uncompetitive?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not realy a cartel. You need a special licence (Personenbeförderungsschein) to be able to transport people for profit in germany. Anyone can get one as long as they are healthy. Also you need ensurance that covers transporting people in your car. Uber tries to go without that, so of course they can be cheaper.
If you have the proper licence and ensurance you can transport people for profit in germany too. It is already done. It is called "Mietwagen". The difference to a taxi is that they are not allowed to pick up people hailing them on the street and can not use the special taxi lanes and stuff like that. They can take you from point A to point B as long as that is prenegotiated.
So if Uber would require all their drivers to have a Personenbeförderungsschein and the proper ensurance no one would have a problm with them. They would just be another Mietwagen company, of course then they would not be cheaper anymore because those things cost.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[gweihir]

It is a damned TEMPORARY INJUNCTION! The party asking for it can claim anything. The judge does only make a commons sense check and a check whether the claimant can pay the damage they caused if the injunction is not upheld. Really, get over yourself and look at the facts.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[Anonymous Coward]

- no insurance in case of accidents (insurance for person transport costs about 10x what a normal car owner pays for his car alone)

Actually, they have insurance, either commercial insurance held by the driver or a primary $1M liability and $1M uninsured motorist bodily injury policy provided by Uber itself.

This is about Germany. The legal minimum in Germany for car insurance is 2.5 million Euro - per injured person.
Normal German car insurance covers around 75 million.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[akozakie]

So, in other words, any law is a bad law if it is not exactly like in the US? To hell with the fact, that European countries are in general democracies? And more direct than American at that (direct election, not through electors)?

Yes, some jobs are "closed" in a way in Europe, with huge differences between countries. But, pathological examples aside (and they do exist), they are only closed in terms of setting prerequisites and perhaps taxes - very far from a cartel. In this case:
- As long as you are legally allowed to drive and do not make a profit from it, you're free to arrange cost sharing with passengers - it's eco-friendly and good for the traffic.
- If you are healthy and have extended insurance, register and you can carry passengers for profit on prenegotiated routes.
- If you are healthy, have extended insurance, probably pass an extra test, maybe something else as well (I'm not German)... In other words, if you meet all the requirements, you can register as a taxi driver. Now you can not only carry passengers for profit, but also use taxi stops, pick up chance passengers from the street, use taxi lanes, etc. No, you do not have to be related to a taxi driver, bribe someone, etc. Just meet the requirements and register.

So, what do you call a free market? One where only the price and reputation decides (remember that reputation does not scale very well)? Where first encounter with a service provider is by definition a high risk? Sorry, I actually prefer to know that if I get in a taxi with the official sign, I know that the driver is a professional, knows the city, the car is in a good condition and if anything happens anyway, the insurance will cover it well above the limits set for regular drivers. Or not, but a driver carrying the taxi sign illegaly risks a lot (at least a large fine or even jail time).

Feel free to run your country anyway you like, but please be cautious about telling others that their ways don't make sense. Most choices in like are multicriterial optimisation problems and there is no clear ordering of Pareto-optimal solutions.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[bloodhawk]

$1 million insurance is actually very low level of insurance for commercial operators and is far below that which is required in many countries. Insurance is also only valid if the driver is licensed, driving for hire vehicles in many countries requires a different license, therefore the drivers are in many cases driving unlicensed.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[Anonymous Coward]

$1 million?? perhaps in the USA such painful low levels of insurance are acceptable? countries across Europe and Australia Pacific region this would be classed as massively underinsured and be a breach of laws around providing public transport.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[Anonymous Coward]

--Insurance: So it works differently over there. However the point remains in Germany.

--Technical inspections: I believe germany also has yearly technical inspection for all vehicles, not just taxis, taxis may have to go in more often. Not that I think this is a problem, as taxis kinda have to be in good shape to make money.

--Reliable costs: This matter a lot when estimating costs beforehand. Sometimes I don't want totake all my cards with me, so carrying small amount of cash only. Service is reliable around here. They have an obligation to drive, it's part of the permit deal. They also have to drive when there isn't enough people to really justify it commercially. So it's possible to get a cab at any time, anywhere, to any place. They can't leave to to the curb because they didn't like my face.

--Proper filling of taxes: Don't really think this would be a problem. Maybe more inviduals would try to skip on these. But overall a moot point.

--In Europe every worker gets health insurance, social security payments, and pension. Uber can't just skip these. The drivers are in fact working for uber, so uber is responsible for paying for all of these, and more. ( and no, claiming they are not workers won't fly here. You can't just reclassify workers as something else to get rid of their worker status. IT's to protect workers. Funny idea, eh? )

So all in all, Uber might be working by law in the US, but their model just doesn't fit in Europe, where there are more regulations and laws to follow on that area. And both workers and passengers have more protection.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[Vik1ng]

Every German that has been trough the TÃfoeV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technischer_%C3%9Cberwachungsverein) can tell you that they don't joke around. They often send regular drivers home and tell them to come back one everything is fixed. I don't see why this should be different with cabs. The main difference is bascially that they have to do the chech more often.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially in Germany.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[soccerisgod]

Uber must be okay with what they're doing because hey, someone somewhere might have done something illegal. Maybe. Because hey, there's anecdotal evidence, probably.

Nice strawman you got there.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[bluefoxlucid]

Look, I assume something similar is set up in .de. If you can read German, have at it; Uber doesn't publish information about the German, British, or Japanese market on the US site.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[bluefoxlucid]

The standard US coverage is something like $30,000 to $250,000 in most states. I don't know what it is in Germany, or what Uber charges. I do know that New Jersey airport omnibus registration requires $1.5M insurance, but the regular fare on cabs is much lower.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[bluefoxlucid]

It's valid for US. I don't know what Uber supplies or what's valid in DE.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[Knuckles]

Thanks. I couldn't find coverage numbers for commercial transportation of people, but here's the numbers for the liability insurance a private car owner is required to have. That's the minimum coverage required by law:

7.5 mil EUR for bodily injury.
1 mil EUR for property damage.
50k EUR for financial loss.

The sums for commercial vehicles are probably higher.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[bluefoxlucid]

I'm required to have at least $30k for property damage and $30k for medical liability. I have $100/$100/$300, but have considered going to a $300 total coverage model.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[Knuckles]

See, and that's why we do not want Uber to undermine what we have by simply ignoring the law.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[bluefoxlucid]

Yes. Here, Uber's coverage is above and beyond commercial taxi service coverage requirements, and well beyond what's common. I have no numbers for Germany; I can only comment on their American business practices. Notably, people have been repeating in New York and Utah and all over America that Uber drivers do not have insurance, which, as I've demonstrated, is incorrect; I have assumed everyone else in the world with similar arguments are similarly misinformed--which is an appropriate assumption until otherwise demonstrated.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[Knuckles]

But see, 30k, 100k, and 300k are all the same woefully inadequate for medical liability. If you miss a stop sign, we have an accident and I as your passenger remain immobile drooling out of my mouth for the next 40 years, your insurance's 300k won't do me much good.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[bluefoxlucid]

Actually it's very adequate: by accepting the payout, you accept it as payment in full. Typically, the not-at-fault driver is insured, and their insurance company accepts the payout on their behalf, waiving all further claims; while an uninsured motorist has no legal standing. An insured pedestrian will, as well, accept the claim via insurance company, automatically, and then have the rest covered by their own insurance.

Technically correct.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[Knuckles]

Sorry, not familiar with the jargon: what does "you accept it as payment in full" mean?

Re:Uncompetitive?

[bluefoxlucid]

It means if someone runs a traffic control signal illegally and smashes into your car, causing $4 million in damages, and they're insured for $30k, your insurance company accepts the $30k and automatically waives your rights to further compensation. "Payment in full". Full payment. Payment for everything, agreed and settled.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[Knuckles]

Thanks for the effort, I am not getting it and Google gives me nothing useful. E.g., how is it a good thing if my insurances company waives my rights to further compensation.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[bluefoxlucid]

It's not; it's a technicality that allows us to have lower insurance.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[Knuckles]

Oh. And how does that help me pay for my nurse the next 40 years after you fucked up my life (let's assume)?

Re:Uncompetitive?

[bluefoxlucid]

It doesn't. It encourages you to die and decrease the surplus population; that's a more economical solution.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[Knuckles]

I see. You didn't convince me to support a change to the Uber model here in Germany, but thanks for the insight.

Re:Uncompetitive?

[bluefoxlucid]

Well, Uber should have enough insurance to meet or exceed common standards where it operates. In the states, they greatly exceed common insurance coverage: even the high coverage of $250,000 in some states for taxis is dwarfed by Uber's $1,000,000 coverage. If German taxis have a higher coverage level, Uber should supply at least that.

Again, arguments against Uber in America often include the lack of insurance coverage--which, in America, is simply untrue. Uber has you better covered in America than an actual commercial taxi service. I don't know about Germany, but I had assumed everyone was similarly uninformed--notably, mainly English-speaking Americans and Britons appear to be commenting, rather than anyone who is able or likely to read up on German Uber and determine if its coverage is adequate. The safe assumption seemed that Uber would be similarly covered in Germany, but perhaps not.

Good...

[Anonymous Coward]

You want to play in our market? Play by our rules. Don't claim that your 'innovative new paradigm' renders those rules obselete and ignore them.

Re:Good...

[jjo]

No one denies that Germany has the right to make the rules within its jurisdiction. We do, however, reserve the right to laugh at those rules if they are silly. For example, if German law required carriage of passengers for hire to be done in horse-drawn vehicles, the problem would not be Germany's right to make such a law, but its complete absurdity. Outlawing Uber is similarly absurd.

Re:Good...

[swillden]

Don't claim that your 'innovative new paradigm' renders those rules obselete and ignore them.

And what if the innovative new paradigm does render those rules obsolete? That is the case in this situation. Oh, not all of the rules, but most of them, because they were established in order to provide customers with confidence that cabs that look reputable are reputable. Those rules indeed are obsolete given a different mechanism for riders to determine if the cabs are trustworthy.

I suppose one answer to this dilemma is "Work with regulators to change the law", but that's going to be pretty difficult until you have some evidence that your new paradigm works. Particularly since there are entrenched interests who are going to be fighting you to protect their business model.

To me, the bottom line here is that the regulations are overreaching, even for the old paradigm. They don't need to actually prevent fly-by-night cabbies from operating, they just need to ensure that people -- even people from out of town who don't know the local rules -- can tell the difference between an "official" cab and one that may not be trustworthy. For example, don't allow any vehicle that isn't a certified cab to look like one. Given that, then old and new systems can compete fairly. The new system will have an advantage of lower costs, but the operators of old services can choose to adopt a similar model and cost structure if they like. Or maybe the vast majority of people will prefer the old way, and most cabbies will stick with it, too. Or some mixture. Let the market sort that out.

Re:Good...

[bloodhawk]

They didn't outright outlaw Uber, they outlawed their illegal practices. Such laws are common in many countries, e.g. Australia it is also illegal to act as a for hire car without appropriate license and insurance, but here they have been directly targeting any driver that drives for them with multi thousand dollar fines. I also don't think the laws around this are absurd, they are about ensuring people are correctly protected by the for hire vehicle as without the regulations it is a cut throat industry with everyone looking to screw over their competitors for an edge.

Uber, like the good citizens they are, ignore it.

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't give a damn about the law, why would they give a damn about a court order. Fucking cowboys.

Good for Germans...

[Anonymous Coward]

As always Germany confirms its high level of civilization.

Re:ITT Eurotrolls

[Anonymous Coward]

US protectionism = obviously a case of luddism and technophobia, it can only be business/government collusion
Elsewhere protectionism = obviously a case of sovereignty, it can only be an enlightened decision

Typical Slashdot

Too many zeroes

[Anonymous Coward]

You only need one zero after the decimal point, anything more is superfluous.

Re:Too many zeroes

[timmyf2371]

On the continent, the thousand separator is typically the full stop instead of the comma, so the actual fine amount would be €250k (and not €250).

Re:Too many zeroes

[Noah Haders]

lol good point. I didn't understand what the GP meant.

Re:Too many zeroes

[HornWumpus]

What? Ignoring your confusion re . vs ,

They are called 'significant digits'. Extra 0s past the decimal can be very expensive.

bad translation

[silfen]

The term "Unlauteres Wettbewerbsverhalten" does not mean "uncompetitive behavior"; it means "competition that violates good taste" or "competition that violates moral standards". A better translation might be "unfair competition".

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

Re:bad translation

[Richy_T]

Though a more accurate translation might be "Hey, where's my cut?"

Re:bad translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee whiz, Good Taste and Moral Standards enshrined in law. Good thing the Germans have a govt to decide for them what Good Taste and Moral Standards they need to follow.

Re:bad translation

[Anonymous Coward]

No. It just means everyone has to follow the same rules here.

Re:bad translation

[OhPlz]

Yes.. the same rules: "where's my cut?"

Re:bad translation

[gweihir]

It actually means "competition using illegal means". Note that this is civil law, so it does not imply anything criminal going on.

Re:bad translation

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it does not mean "competition using illegal means"; as I was saying: it means "competition that violates moral standards". Read the Wikipedia page that I pointed to.

And why are you putting up straw men ("it does not imply anything criminal going on")?

Re:bad translation

[gweihir]

Bullshit. And incidentally, I grew up in Germany. You are possible referring to "Treu und Glauben", but that is contract law, which is something else entirely.

Re:ITT Eurotrolls

[Anonymous Coward]

The though that Americans have that they can sets laws inside their own country is a clear case of American exceptionalism. They should just do what Europe tells them to do.

fact check first

[silfen]

Even if the term actually meant "anti-competitive behavior", it would be accurate roughly in the sense that the "Ministry of Truth" has to do with truth and the "Ministry of Peace" has to do with peace.

Of course, the term "unlauterer Wettbewerb" doesn't even mean "anti-competitive behavior", it means something like "indecent competition" or "immoral competition". The best translation is probably "unfair competition", although that doesn't quite capture the emotional force of the term in German. Usually, companies accused of this behavior are too competitive, rather than anti-competitive.

But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of your ideology.

Re: fact check first

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything sounds different and more powerful in German. Don't believe me? Simply read the instructions for aspirin use in German, out loud: You can almost hear the cheering crowds, see the standards, the proud eagles, the great flag. And above all, the thundering chant: "sieg heil, sieg heil, sieg heil..."

Re: fact check first

[HornWumpus]

Keine eier!

Going to use this one later!

[Anonymous Coward]

"...no legal entity (person, enterprise) is allowed to transfer passengers without having passed the relevant tests and having the appropriate insurance coverage."

Great! I'm going to use this line to keep from being the designated driver when my mates and I go out on Friday night.

Re:Going to use this one later!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not operating a commercial service being the "designated driver when my mates and I go out on Friday night". That's the key difference.

Fuck these stupid morons

[salsadancer]

Germans have rules and regulations for everything. You can give two strangers a ride when you meet them at a party without problems but as soon as the state's koffers are affected you need the Personenbeförderungsgesetz. You can use illegally obtained evidence to convict tax evaders but the same court prohibits the use of dashcam recordings as evidence (because they violate some privacy law) if you want to take a traffic offender to court. Some logic there.... As Nietzsche said some 150 years ago: The state is the worst of all monsters - it claims to speak for the people - but it only speaks for itself.

Re:Fuck these stupid morons

[Rhywden]

Riiight. You're forgetting one thing: The insurance companies.

As soon as you have been in an accident while driving for Uber, your insurance company WILL drop your contract AND sue you - because the standard insurance contract is not intended for transportation services.

Re:Fuck these stupid morons

[misexistentialist]

Do they also punish drivers who provide "transportation services" to pizza pies?

Re:Fuck these stupid morons

[Rhywden]

If they state that they're using their car for private needs and then go on to use it in a business setting - certainly.

Over here, you insure the car instead of the driver and you also have to tell the insurance company what you're using the car for. Lying to insurance companies was always a bad idea, y'know?

Re:Fuck these stupid morons

[Anonymous Coward]

From Esurance.com:

Do you need commercial car insurance?

If you can answer "yes" to any of the following questions, you may need commercial car insurance:

1. Are any of your vehicles used for pickup or delivery of goods, including supplies, materials, newspaper, pizza, other food items, or for messenger services?

Re:Fuck these stupid morons

[Anonymous Coward]

If the traffic offender is prosecuted for criminal behavior you can use the dashcam footage. It is just not legal to record so you can not use it for civil court cases ...

Seems perfectly legit to me.

Re:Fuck these stupid morons

[drinkypoo]

It is just not legal to record so you can not use it for civil court cases ... Seems perfectly legit to me.

Well, it isn't. Making it illegal to record people's behavior in public is a license to behave badly.

This can get expensive for Uber fast

[Rhywden]

The linked article lacks one important detail: The fine of up to 250,000€ is for each instance of breaking the injunction.

Sure, the first violation may only cost 2,000€. But that will go up for every violation. And you can bet your ass that the competitors will use the apps to check on Uber. And they will report any violation they find.

Uber Unter Ober Amer Gow?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or how does that go?

Control communications

[Anonymous Coward]

They an many governments are attempting to seize control over communications. Take it back. Even if you have to infiltrate and change within the government.

Do not let them control it, or they control you just like Hitler did.

Drivers license

[Stan92057]

"no legal entity (person, enterprise) is allowed to transfer passengers without having passed the relevant tests and having the appropriate insurance coverage"

Everyone has passed that, its called a "Drivers license" unless they just hand them out at the age of whatever in Germany. lol Everyone must get insurance so that's a given.

Re:Drivers license

[Anonymous Coward]

In Germany, if you are driving passengers for money you must have an extra license.
This is not hard to get. Depending on your state, some age/driving experience limitations, police background check, test of local geography knowledge.

In Germany you must have insurance, but that insurance is not required to cover damage to the passengers and "normal" insurance contracts have clauses which renders them moot if you are driving professionally.
Professional drivers must have insurances which cover professional driving and damage to passengers.
This isn't hard to get either, it's just considerably more expensive.

Such requirements apply to everyone which is driving professionally -- even if you are just the family's choffeur. Not just taxis, by the way.

Uber is being banned because they are not willing to ensure the drivers which sign up for Uber Pop meet the legal requirements.
They argue it's the driver's responsability to be legal.
The cities/states argue that since Uber is making money from this, they have responsability for checking.

Re:Drivers license

[moronoxyd]

'relevant tests', 'approriate insurance'

Sure every driver has that for the purpose of driving oneself or friends and relatives.
But once you want to drive people for profit you have to follow stricter rules, pass more tests and have more insurance.

Cab drivers have to do that, so why shouldn't Uber do the same?

Re:Drivers license

[Anonymous Coward]

A driver's license is different from a commercial driver's license. In fact, you can't even pull a small trailer with a standard German driver's license. Also, insurance may not cover you if you're carrying passengers for-profit (though it could be difficult for them to find that out).

Re:Drivers license

[Stan92057]

Oh i agree with you 100% just posted what i thought was a silly statement. oh a side note how does one drive differently with a paying customer as apposed to a family member?? that's kinda silly too, thinking there some kinda special way to drive paying as apposed to loved ones. They should have just stated they need a commercial license to drive paying customers and a minimum amount of insurance as apposed to bottom dollar government mandated get by insurance. Ive been driving since 1975 im an expert driver with 39 years driving experience no recordable accidents, no tickets except 2 parking tickets. Any test the government could think up is nothing more then black tape feelgood laws. But requiring then to pay for a commercial license is very fair IMEO

Re:Drivers license

[moronoxyd]

Also, insurance may not cover you if you're carrying passengers for-profit (though it could be difficult for them to find that out).

How so?
'Hey, I'm sorry that you just got injured while being in my car, but could you please not mention that you booked me on Uber to anybody, like the police, because I'm not covered for this case?'

Yeah, right. That will work out just fine...

Re:Drivers license

[westlake]

Everyone has passed that, its called a "Drivers license" unless they just hand them out at the age of whatever in Germany. lol

To obtain a commercial driver's licence in Germany, the first thing you need is a standard EU driver's license, which are not passed out like candy at a fireman's picnic.

You will need to know the law and demonstrate competence in handling your class of vehicle.

You will be run through a seres of no-nonsense medical and psychiatric evaluations. You will need a damn near perfect drving record and no criminal record.

The big city taxi driver must also have "The Knowledge" - a deep understanding of routes, traffic, destinations, and so on.

Re:Drivers license

[Knuckles]

oh a side note how does one drive differently with a paying customer as apposed to a family member??

It's simple insurance mathematics. The insurance for taxis is most likely simply higher because the payouts are higher. Much more time on the road, etc. And it makes sense to require that a professional driver has adequate insurance for his passengers - which is a lot of coverage if you consider that a mistake can put 4 passengers in a wheelchair for decades.

Re:Drivers license

[Anonymous Coward]

Then so be it !

Let's create label for the one that obtained the driver licence and let uber be. They just have to give advantages, insurance, whathever for this status and their customer.

Anti-competitive behaviour my a**. Isn't that anti-competitive decreeing this business is illegal ? Are they even trying to stay "competitive" ?

Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Taxis usually have to pay extra for insurance to cover for passenger lawsuits in case of accidents. They also have to pay enormous taxi licenses, pay income taxes Etc.

Uber drivers don't pay any of that because they exist outside of normal regulations. Uber likes to exist in that gray area and we know for sure they love to operate shadily, as seen recently.

It would be funny to see someone get in a car accident with a Uber driver and sue Uber for billions after finding out the driver doesn't have proper insurance. After all, it seems Uber only pays lip service to such things.

Airbnb is in a pretty similar situation.. These service sharing companies think they are smart but they are making the worst enemies of all by attacking government revenue streams! In my opinion, Uber would do well with legit taxi partners since their service is pretty good.

Re:ITT Eurotrolls

[jythie]

but... but.. America! Hell Yeah!

Re:Uber, like the good citizens they are, ignore i

[Noah Haders]

They don't give a damn about the law, why would they give a damn about a court order. Fucking cowboys.

germans love cowboys. seriously, they're totally nuts over all native American/wild west culture stuff. I don't know why.

tests and coverage?

[HockeyPuck]

the relevant tests and having the appropriate insurance coverage

While I've never used Uber/Lyft, I'm hoping some of you have and can shed some light on it.

Have any of you actually asked for proof of insurance or a valid registration before getting into the car? Does Uber/Lyft do any checking to make sure that stuff hasn't expired?

One other question: If I'm getting a ride via Uber and we get in an accident, and I get hurt, regardless of who's fault it is, do I go after the Uber driver, Uber company or do I have to file my insurance claims against the other driver? I would hope that Uber would handle this form me so I can deal with a corporation and not two individuals (my driver and the other driver).

Re:tests and coverage?

[Anonymous Coward]

You might find this interesting.

http://valleywag.gawker.com/uber-driver-heres-how-we-get-around-background-checks-1596982249

Re:tests and coverage?

[azadrozny]

I have never used Uber, but I suspect that in an accident situation you start with the person driving the car you were in, regardless of who is at-fault, then let the insurance companies sort it all out. Your driver could be is a heap of trouble if they are involved in an at-fault accident while driving for one of these services, and it is found that they do not have a policy that covers for-hire services (most home/auto policies don't). You as the passenger could be left cover your own costs, since the drivers policy will likely refuse coverage. The upside for you is that your personal health insurance would pay your costs, then attempt to recover their costs from the driver (or his insurance, and possibly Uber) through subrogation. Your costs would likely be limited to the co-pays and deductibles of your health policy.

Re:tests and coverage?

[david_thornley]

Your costs can also include loss of income, having to move to a handicap-friendly residence or assisted living facility (temporarily and permanently), pain and suffering (which are routinely awarded in the US), not to mention things like loss of bodily function or even death. Health insurance does not normally cover much of this. Proper commercial insurance will.

Free speech but not trade

[troll -1]

I find it interesting how everyone emphasizes freedom of speech yet freedom to trade is heavily restricted but is not considered a basic human right. People should be free to trade with whoever they want, when they want, without the need to get permission from some higher authority. Why are we still living under the ecclesiastical guardianship of a hobbesian leviathanical kafkaesque dystopia? Whatever happened to the Enlightenment?

Re:Free speech but not trade

[Mr. Slippery]

I find it interesting how everyone emphasizes freedom of speech yet freedom to trade is heavily restricted but is not considered a basic human right.

Because it's not. Trade exists only where property exists. Property exists only where a state exists -- "ownership" is exactly and only the ability to call on state force to maintain your control of something. Trace any claim of "property" back and you find a state-issued piece of paper, a land or resource deed.

Used properly, property and trade are ways that we help protect basic human rights. They are not rights in themselves. Our neglect of that principle is at the root of many of the world's problems today.

Re:Free speech but not trade

[moronoxyd]

Do you really would want to do business with AT&T or Microsoft or GM without any laws in place that regulate the contracts?
Trust me: You don't. They have the power of a multi billion company and you have nothing.
They would dictate all the rules and you could agree or die.
And no, the free market wouldn't solve the problem: There would be no smaller competitors, because there would be no law that protects them from the big meanie.

The free market is an ideal that ignores reality.
We need government regulation because we are not on equal standing in regards to the companies we would like (or need, for want of alternatives) do business with.

Re:Free speech but not trade

[itzly]

And how about the freedom of people having a democratic vote on laws that restrict some freedoms in return for other things they may find important ?

Re:Free speech but not trade

[BringsApples]

People should be free to trade with whoever they want, when they want, without the need to get permission from some higher authority

I agree. However if you chose to trade in a specific currency, then there's a lot that comes with it. Also, I'd rather my neighbors not spend their time trading crack-cocain for rims at will.

Whatever happened to the Enlightenment?

Enlightenment is still around, as much as ever. Though, not much of that goes on here on slashdot.

Re:Free speech but not trade

[misexistentialist]

Few people actually believe in freedom of speech, and almost no countries allow it

Re:Free speech but not trade

[Anonymous Coward]

It turns out economic freedom can be bought, sold, borrowed against, and generally isn't a stable situation at all. People in the Enlightenment read books that illuminated such issues. Have you even read one book Kafka?

Re:Free speech but not trade

[bruce_the_loon]

It's because society has spent centuries observing how immoral individuals use lack of regulation to rape, pillage and torment those less capable of defending themselves, whether it be via trade, relationships or employment, and has decided as a group to regulate those areas to protect those incapable of protecting themselves.

Yes, some regulations go too far, and others don't go far enough, and a lot are outdated because society evolves too fast. But it is needed, and changes are needed too.

If German society as a whole thinks Uber is getting a bum deal with this ruling, then they must tell the authorities in no uncertain terms that they think that. Not just a vocal minority as is happening now. If the majority don't do so when given the opportunity, then they do have concerns about clean and safe vehicles and properly trained drivers which Uber needs to address before society will trust them.

Re:Free speech but not trade

[Entropius]

Well, it depends. If you're in a place with limited government (like most places in the West), that's not really a freedom. In the US, you don't have the right to vote in a law that says that redheads can't own property, no matter how much you'd like to: the scope of things up for a vote isn't unlimited.

Re:Free speech but not trade

[itzly]

Nobody claimed the scope was unlimited. It's a limited freedom, like most freedoms. Unlimited freedom usually doesn't work, because it hurts others.

Re:Free speech but not trade

[houghi]

You have the freedom to trade under certain limitations. Just like you are not allowed to yell fire in a cinema, there will be limitations on your rights.

Basicaly the rights are there to say "within reason". Different countries and people will not agree on what "different reason" means. e.g. the German public have decided that showing Nazi signs to be illegal. The USofA have decided that selling of aklcohol to 18 year olds is forbidden.

This does not mean that everybody agrees on this "withing reason". I am sure many Americans are against the age limit on selling alcohol. Some out of principle, some for financial reasons.

Sure, you could let all things go and have a complete freedom of trade. That will however get in the way of others freedoms very fast.

Where we're going, we don't need rules...

[QuasiSteve]

I'm not so sure that's right. I'm certainly not equating the two here, but certainly there's a comparison to be made with e.g. Time4Popcorn.

Time4Popcorn effectively aims to play in the market of non-interactive entertainment delivery (films and TV series, mostly), but its developers - and certainly its users - have no interest in wanting to play by the existing rules (i.e. having to license the content at great cost, and only after spending weeks if not months of being unable to license it at all).

I don't think there's a great many people suggesting that it, and other such upsetting technologies, be required to play by the rules. If anything, they see these technologies as being instigators of having those rules changed, if not abandoned altogether.

I see Uber and the like as being in the same vein - and while Germany, London, whatever ends up 'banning' these services, I'm sure they realize that it's not going to stop then and there, and the rules will eventually have to be adjusted.

Re:Where we're going, we don't need rules...

[moronoxyd]

I see Uber and the like as being in the same vein - and while Germany, London, whatever ends up 'banning' these services, I'm sure they realize that it's not going to stop then and there, and the rules will eventually have to be adjusted.

And once the rules have been adjusted Uber is free to do business according to those rules.
But TODAY they have to do business according to TODAYS rules. If they think the rules are outdated, they should work on changing them. But until then they have to follow them.

Re:Where we're going, we don't need rules...

[Anonymous Coward]

Time4Popcorn effectively aims to play in the market of non-interactive entertainment delivery (films and TV series, mostly), but its developers - and certainly its users - have no interest in wanting to play by the existing rules (i.e. having to license the content at great cost, and only after spending weeks if not months of being unable to license it at all).

Then they're thieves. You either pay for the license (and jump the appropriate hoops) or you *don't use* the content. It's not that fucking hard. There is a ton of content out there just waiting, nay begging, to be used. Use that. And if you think it's crap: join them and improve it. Now you are a creator and therefore part of the solution.

I'm so sick and tired of these self-righteous "I've got a right to your content" fucks. The ultimate success of the consumer propaganda. Rather than free themselves, they will steal their chains. Dumbasses.

Edit: Captcha: recital. Irony deepening.

Re:Where we're going, we don't need rules...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Where we're going, we don't need rules...

If you dont need rules, neither may your competitor, who might decide to kill you.

> the rules will eventually have to be adjusted.

So, but which ones? Only the ones you benefit from? Why should all the other stake holders allow unilateral rule changes without compensation?

> I'm sure they realize that it's not going to stop

I'm sure you dont realize that it already _has_ stopped. The "lets disrupt xyz" business model doesnt work outside of the US. Most people on the planet are conservative and content with what they have and do not like their infrastructure to be randomly disrupted every few years in the name of progress.

Re:Where we're going, we don't need rules...

[david_thornley]

If Time4Popcorn is flagrantly violating copyright, there are quite a few people who would suggest that they be made to play by the rules, primarily but not exclusively including people who benefit from royalties in some form and people who are involved in any similar business that does operate legally. I can understand the developers and users liking it, because the users get what they want cheap when they want it and the developers can profit from that, and people ideologically opposed to copyright itself liking it, but that's probably where it ends.

This is good news

[xednieht]

Now I can tell my nagging wife that she's no longer allowed to ride in das auto with me.

meh, obey the law

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber is big enough to bring their operations into complicance, if the laws are so unfair, they can afford lobbyists too.

Re:Uber, like the good citizens they are, ignore i

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't give a damn about the law, why would they give a damn about a court order. Fucking cowboys.

germans love cowboys. seriously, they're totally nuts over all native American/wild west culture stuff. I don't know why.

And Germans love David Hasselhoff!

Insurance and a 1099

[tepples]

Insurance and income tax I can understand. It'd be fine if the court allowed Uber to continue operating so long as it requires verifiable proof of insurance and discloses drivers' income to the government as contractor income to be claimed on whatever Germany calls its equivalent of IRS form 1099. But why the "enormous taxi licenses" on top of the income tax that's already due?

Re:Insurance and a 1099

[Mr D from 63]

If you don't like the license requirements, then you should ask for all existing taxi drivers to be exempt from them, not just the Uber drivers. Also, maybe they should give some refund to those who already paid. And make insurance requirements the same for all as well.

Why stop at Taxi services? Some might want to take it a step further and eliminate all business licenses or fees, and minimize regulation of them.

Re:Insurance and a 1099

[powerlord]

I think its a case of German law makers thinking: If it looks like a taxi, and acts like a taxi, then it should be regulated like a taxi. Can't really fault them on this.

The bigger issue is that Uber, Lyft, etc. are trying to take advantage of the lag between what is available (Hail a taxi via an app), and what the current incumbent do now, by bypassing the current laws. This is admirable from a competition perspective, but not by sacrificing all laws to get there and compete.

Uber is notorious at this point for operating full steam ahead, against regulation, and even court rulings, to get into place. I am not surprised Germany took a dim view of their antics and slapped them.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/26/6067663/this-is-ubers-playbook-for-sabotaging-lyft

Some regulations are in place to protect drivers, others are in place to protect passengers. To declare yourself immune to them all is lovely, but its as effective as me declaring myself King of the Internet and demanding all my subjects to send me $5.

Adding "with the help of a mobile app" to the end of your business plan, does not suddenly make a brand new industry and to pretend otherwise is delusional (except to shareholders or venture capitalists).

Re:Insurance and a 1099

[ottothecow]

I don't know about Germany, but I have been following the Uber/Lyft issues here in Chicago.

Those specially "licensed" taxi drivers? Turns out the taxi license is just a test to see if you know the city streets and where certain landmarks are. There is no additional test on driving ability, kindness to customers, or anything like that. While I admit that it can be annoying to get a driver who can't find a major intersection, the presence of GPS systems makes this less important (and uber now lets you prefill your destination and will then give your driver directions). But the taxi companies try to make it sound like they have superior safer drivers because they have a chauffeur's license.

With uber, the terrible drivers get booted. You leave them bad reviews and uber will actually call you to ask about your trip. Enough of those and those drivers are gone. Compare this with taxi drivers where you have to go out of the way to make a complaint with little likelihood that the taxi company will do anything about it. And in my experience, the Uber driver's are much more courteous and are smoother drivers. They don't drive like asshat taxis both because they want to keep their good ratings, and because they are driving their personal vehicles which they do not want to damage (while every taxi is a little scraped up and nobody cares).

I think the rideshare companies have some serious liability insurance issues to work through and I wouldn't be opposed to some sort of enhanced driver's license requirement (but I want that to be an on-the-road test of driving safety, rather than a 100% geography test). But I don't think banning them is the right answer. In just a short amount of time, Uber has managed to roll out a wide-ranging service in Chicago that is leaps and bounds above what the taxi industry has been able to do with technology. I can actually rely on Uber, unlike the taxi companies where 25% of the time they won't actually show up if you have arranged an early morning ride ot the airport...and that reliability is worth major points (and that extends to the yellow cab drivers who use uber to find passengers--they are also a step above the random cabs you find on the street or having to deal with the taxi dispatch companies).

Re:Insurance and a 1099

[Euler]

Heck, those pesky Bar exams and medical boards too... :)

Re: Insurance and a 1099

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do I send my $5, my liege?

Re: Insurance and a 1099

[powerlord]

Where do I send my $5, my liege?

Just send me your bank account and routing numbers and I'll deduct it and any other outstanding tithes as needed.

fact check first

[Anonymous Coward]

But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of your ideology.

Don't worry, we won't!

Re:Uber, like the good citizens they are, ignore i

[angel'o'sphere]

Because of the stories of "Karl May".

Software Analogies

[GlennC]

I wonder how many of those who are up in arms about letting services like Uber and Lyft market their services would allow commercial hardware and software companies to make changes to GPL licensed software without attribution or sharing their modified source code?

Or should Apple support my home built PC if I put OS X on it? If I paid for the OS, the vendor should support that, right? Why should I pay extra for their hardware...it's no different, right?

To me, it's simple - if you want to market your services, follow the established rules.

Only affects Uber POP, not Uber Black ...

[hholzgra]

Uber Black was their attempt to play by the rules (well, sort of) ... they only started to push POP after seeing that there's not really that much demand for the the service they offer with Black over here in Germany

ohh... well no wonder

[meeotch]

"Public sentiment toward the company turned abruptly negative after the unveiling of its phone app, which responds to car reservation requests by announcing, 'Die UberMenchen are coming to pick you up!,' and asking the customer to don a distinctive badge, so that they can be identified."

This raises an interesting problem for Germans...

[ctrl-alt-canc]

The german national anthem so begins:

Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles
uber alles in der Welt.

Now try singing it after blocking Uber...

Rigid authority

[JimSadler]

Somehow no matter how hard they try there is simply that Germanic compulsion to get everyone goose stepping in perfect order. The world changes and sometimes new ideas work better than older ideas. But the economics are such that any change hurts someone. Winning does not imply unfair competition. One excuse for a taxi commission has always been a need to know roads in a city. Now we have GPS and punching in the address routes the driver. On top of that we are about to eliminate human drivers anyway. Change is painful and when everything gets monetized there is a tendency to lock down any hope of change for the better.

Apparently regulation is "socialist"

[golodh]

As far as I know (it's mentioned in the original article), German law demands things like adequate insurance cover, driver's health certificates and high vehicle maintenance standards. Sounds reasonable huh?

This applies for all taxicab companies, no matter their size. What Uber is doing is to make an end-run around those laws by offering taxicab rides from drivers who *don't* meet those requirements. Makes it easy to undercut people who do abide by the law eh? Sounds like unfair competition to me.

So how the hell is enforcing such laws "Socialist"?

And whoever decided this Anonymous Coward's drive-by comment qualifies as "insightful"?

Re:Apparently regulation is "socialist"

[powerlord]

Considering the "competitive" practices Uber has been using in the USA ( http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/26/6067663/this-is-ubers-playbook-for-sabotaging-lyft ), I feel compelled to partake of another German word: schadenfreude

Re:Apparently regulation is "socialist"

[angel'o'sphere]

For an american everything anti 'comunism' and anti 'socialism' is insightfull, sad, very sad!

Re: Apparently regulation is "socialist"

[iamhassi]

Exactly this. Requiring professional drivers to have additional training and the proper insurance is a good thing. I can't believe Uber and Lyft have been able to get away with it in the US since normal car insurance in the US does not cover passengers if they are paying for the ride. All it takes is one idiot with poor coverage to hit your car while you're driving around paying passengers and you're screwed, you'll have garnished wages for life and you'll lose anything of value so the courts can pay the medical expenses of your passenger

Re:Apparently regulation is "socialist"

[Psyborgue]

In Paris, after using the local taxis several times, and after experiencing the horrifically rude drivers. I swore them off in favor of Uber. Now, France is trying to do the same thing as Germany (at the behest of the existing monopoly of asshole taxis). What you're witnessing here is the preservation of a state granted monopoly on sub-par service, not any real protection of the consumer. Personally, I prefer Uber's system when higher rated drivers get priority and users rate their rides to one where I have no choice, one where the state had made the decision for me (with predictably bad results). After all, what is the incentive to be a nice guy to your customers if they have no choice in choosing you.

Re:Apparently regulation is "socialist"

[HolyMackerelBatman!]

I don't know why Uber are whining about this. It appears they try to enter every market with their cowboy style of 'ride sharing', then once they get a dressing down by the local authorities they'll adapt the service, get some properly insured and licensed taxis to operate as part of the Uber network and then just run the service like a local taxi firm but with a cool app. That's what they did in the UK anyway so I don't know why they're now trying to launch in Germany with lax standards.

Re:Apparently regulation is "socialist"

[SerpentMage]

Sorry, but what France is saying and Germany are saying are two totally different things.

France by default has idiotic protectionist schemes. Germany on the other hand has in this case common sense schemes like the GP post is saying.

I am for free competition, and free market. However, I am NOT for skirting regulations because you think you found a loophole. Imagine if everybody did that? While some things would be good, many other things would not be good at all. Or are you for lead in your toothpaste?

Re: Apparently regulation is "socialist"

[Anonymous Coward]

If an idiot with poor coverage hits your car, surely they're the ones at fault and thus the ones liable (and if not, that's a bigger issue than just for Uber drivers, because it will affect you even if you are insured against that risk).

Re:Apparently regulation is "socialist"

[Anonymous Coward]

Exploiting the supposed loopholes Uber are using is not even remotely new - the idea of minicabs has been around since at least the 70s. In most places laws have been introduced to regulate minicabs, and Uber should comply with those, but generally the regulations are much less onerous than for true taxis.

What makes Uber interesting (and threatening to taxis) is that with just two well-publicised websites rather than lots of badly-advertised phone numbers users are calling on a larger pool of minicabs and so the service is better than before, greatly reducing the disadvantage minicabs used to have of needing to be dispatched by radio rather than touting for trade.

Re:Apparently regulation is "socialist"

[Beliskner]

It is unreasonable to expect the average Uber passenger to check all of the drivers insurance details before getting in the vehicle, so yes government control is required

All of what you said is true

[Xaedalus]

But we're the only First World nation with European roots in centuries to elect a minority as a president--twice. Tell me, when do you think Britain will elect it's first Prime Minister of Pakistani or Indian descent? Or when Australia will elect an Aboriginal Prime Minister? Or Germany electing someone of Turkish origin? Or France with someone of Algerian ancestry?

Re:All of what you said is true

[Anonymous Coward]

But we're the only First World nation with European roots in centuries to elect a minority as a president--twice. Tell me, when do you think Britain will elect it's first Prime Minister of Pakistani or Indian descent? Or when Australia will elect an Aboriginal Prime Minister? Or Germany electing someone of Turkish origin? Or France with someone of Algerian ancestry?

Britain has already elected a minority candidate.

Re:All of what you said is true

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Disraeli

Re:All of what you said is true

[angel'o'sphere]

Twice? Who was the first one then? Or do you mean you elected the same person twice?
UK and Germany both had a woman (yeah, long after India and Parkistan ;) )
Formyour other questions, no idea. The head of the (german) green party is from turkish ancestry. I guess if one gets prominent enough he has a good chance to become Chancelor.
An aboriginy as prime minister in australia sounds indeed unthinkable.
France is a complete other topic, the next prime minister or president can easily be of any racial origin you can imagine. In France it is very simple: you speak French? You are French!

Re:All of what you said is true

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it a good thing? That minority president changed all the White House aids to match his colour and many position of power are now handed over to blacks, mostly. Hollywood has been trolling us for decades depicting in almost all movies and series people in position of power as black. Initially we thought it was because the actors were good, but now it got severely out of hand. So what do I ask, due to political correctness, are you willing to have an apartheid run by black in the new United States of Africa?

What does taxi service cost the public?

[tepples]

If you don't like the license requirements, then you should ask for all existing taxi drivers to be exempt from them

If a business license funds public oversight and infrastructure relevant to an industry, I'd agree that assessing it evenly across all businesses in that industry would be fair. For example, assess a taxi license on both Uber and traditional taxi service. Then the problem becomes setting the appropriate price. Governments and other monopolies have historically had a poor track record of setting an efficient price for a service, and Anonymous Coward #47808633 called the existing price "enormous". So it makes sense to set the taxi license at or near cost, which raises a question: What public costs are directly related to taxi service?

Re:What does taxi service cost the public?

[Mr D from 63]

What costs?...As with most licensing agencies, 0ne of the costs is for licensing is administration of the testing & licensing itself, as well as any oversight, inspections, etc. Some cities build taxi pickup lanes and other infrastructure to facilitate the service in specific areas. Just a few off the top of my head.

Re:What does taxi service cost the public?

[drinkypoo]

0ne of the costs is for licensing is administration of the testing & licensing itself, as well as any oversight, inspections, etc.

Germany already has inspections, and the driver already pays for the inspections. If the problem is inadequate inspection, send the vehicle for more inspections. This is not a cost to the people, because the driver already pays the cost. If there is no significant additional licensing, there is no significant additional licensing cost.

Some cities build taxi pickup lanes and other infrastructure to facilitate the service in specific areas.

Yes, and those costs are seen as a benefit to the city, because they ease congestion.

Re:What does taxi service cost the public?

[Mr D from 63]

OK

Re:This raises an interesting problem for Germans.

[dunkelfalke]

Two points here. First, it is über, not uber in the anthem. Second, only neonazis sing the first verse.

Re:This raises an interesting problem for Germans.

[Anonymous Coward]

Neeeeiinn!! Ueber Anarchy lieben mussen! Ah, warten Sie,..Ubeeerrr!

Re:Uber, like the good citizens they are, ignore i

[Anonymous Coward]

He wrote nice westerns while in prison, never even set a foot on Amerika himself.

Re:This raises an interesting problem for Germans.

[TeknoHog]

it is über, not uber in the anthem.

Oh, right, because the name Uber is not influenced by the German "über" preposition/prefix in any way, and neither is the colloquial usage of uber-, as in "ubergeek". Must be pure coincidence.

(Where I'm from, we also use the über prefix for words like übergeek. It's not really that hard to spell or pronounce, but I guess for truly international usage you need to fall back to ASCII.)

A car is transportation

[Anonymous Coward]

and fuck the insurance companies.

Except

[Anonymous Coward]

he was responding to this...

"(it might be, that some of these points don't apply to US cabs as well, here they don't)"

At least bother to read the conversation if you are going to jump in and be an asshat.

Godwin FTW

[Anonymous Coward]

Recently in your country they were stuffing human beings in ovens and making lamp shades out of their skin. Take your high horse and shove your head up its ass.

Insurance and a 1099

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, in NYC taxi drivers have to fork over something like $600K / year for their taxi rights (and that was like 10 years ago). That's a pretty big cost right there that Uber taxis get away without paying. Most if not all cities in North America have this kind of license fee (but less than NYC, no doubt). Presumably in Europe too.

Interesting details here: http://www.ehow.com/info_8620636_much-cab-driver-new-york.html

Where we're going, we don't need rules...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I see Uber and the like as being in the same vein - and while Germany, London, whatever ends up 'banning' these services, I'm sure they realize that it's not going to stop then and there, and the rules will eventually have to be adjusted."

The thing is, in Europe the taxi system usually works really well. The majority of people don't want those rules to be changed. You are right offcourse on how new distruptive technology or ideas will eventually result in rules being changed, but we had uber-like unregulated taxis before, and didn't like them, so we regulated them. Our system is working. Uber may replace the crappy taxi service in US al lthey want. If we want our taxis regulated uber either becomes regulated and plays by the rules or doesn't play at all.

Free speech but not trade

[Anonymous Coward]

Because we have a thing called "society". We heve deemed it a good thing to have common rules regarding some (almost all) things. Majority of the people don't want to have to check themselves if the taxi they called actually knows where he is going, or has a drivers license. Majority of the people don't want to have to wonder if the food they just bought is edible or not. We have laws and regulations to make everyday life easier and less risky. Yes, it slows down some things and might feel a bit tedious when you have to comply with all the regulation, but in the end that's how we as a society want it to be.

Also, Germany restricts some forms of speech more than US. Europe in general doesn't think it's as big of a thing you make it to be. Even the US doesn't have total freedom of speech (you can figure this one out yourself, some speech is forbidden by law)

For what services does it pay?

[tepples]

For example, in NYC taxi drivers have to fork over something like $600K / year for their taxi rights

But why do local governments assess this tax? For what taxi-related city services does it pay?

Re:For what services does it pay?

[Stuarticus]

They don't he's wrong. You might as well say buying a shop on Broadway is a tax, they are paying for the right to operate the cab, usually buying it from an existing driver.

just one of many

[Anonymous Coward]

We will see more of these battles in the future. New modern internet-based "informal" / "hobby" alternatives competing with established companies who are used to play on "legal markets".

We already saw it in entertainment and publishing with "hobby file sharing" vs. "rights holders" battle still ongoing. - "Aaargh... They're Pirates!! Get them!"
We have hobby news-reporters and entertainers (bloggers) v.s. established media. - "Internet Hate!! Regulate it, censor it!!"

Who knows what branch of business will be next...

Uber in UK

[stoatwblr]

The UK has the same rules - must have a passenger license and must have insurance.

Uber complied with those rules and would do in Germany too. This is anticompetitive behaviour and will get slapped down by the EU.

Then what justifies medallion scarcity?

[tepples]

That still doesn't tell me why "the right to operate the cab" itself, as symbolized by a medallion, needs to be made artificially scarce in the first place.

Re:Then what justifies medallion scarcity?

[Stuarticus]

I and others have explained this in the thread, over provision is incredibly unproductive, people try to make a career out of it and fail, sit around doing nothing and losing money, under provision brings transportation to a standstill.

Re:Then what justifies medallion scarcity?

[tepples]

The rise of Uber seems to indicate that under provision has happened.

Re:Then what justifies medallion scarcity?

[Stuarticus]

Hardly, just that people can cut corners and make a living in the interim.

Re:Then what justifies medallion scarcity?

[tepples]

If the market would over-provide without government intervention, then why does the city sell medallions instead of leasing them?

Re:Then what justifies medallion scarcity?

[Stuarticus]

Leased medallions are a tax, bought ones are an investment, I'd have thought a free marketeer like yourself would prefer the latter. As I said earlier, imagine it more like owning a shop on a busy street.

Property tax on medallions

[tepples]

I'd have thought a free marketeer like yourself would prefer the latter.

Georgists are free marketeers with respect to capital and labor resources but socialists with respect to land resources. Taxi over-provision is overuse of a land resource.

As I said earlier, imagine it more like owning a shop on a busy street.

Such an owner would have to pay property tax. Likewise, medallion owners in effect own a share of the value of the land on which roads are built. But what property tax do medallion owners pay?

Good...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber is not innovative, using an app instead of a phone to tap into a 'grey' market for transporting people is NOT innovative.