To be fair, the comments were noted to have been made before the latest issue. So, perhaps they were on the cusp last week, and have plummeted over it this.
Given that the drivers agreed to buy the SUVs in the first place, I'm not sure what else Lyft could really be expected to do here. They helped the drivers sell the SUVs and sent them a fairly sizable bit of compensation.
A lot of car share drivers, particularly for UberX, end up buying cars as part of driving. It seems like a reasonable though failed experiment.
Yeah the second he said that he was invested in Uber's biggest competitor, I couldn't take him seriously. Uber has gone over the line sometimes, but he's obviously going to make it sound worse than it is.
I mostly agree. For instance, I don't believe there exists a conflict of interest in challenging the ethics of a competitor. Choosing to support a competitor because a company behaves unethically makes a lot of sense to me.
That all being said, I think you overestimate the probability someone will call him out on anything. When was the last time someone was ever called out for making a bad prediction, making a false but ultimately mild allegation, or raising concerns about a competitor? I've worked at places that would state publicly that their competitors steal from customers, and never heard that even questioned on a factual basis, forget someone doing some weird kabuki theater credibility sacrificing ritual.
There's a big difference between creating something that looks like a Swiss watch and selling it to someone who wants a Swiss watch, and creating something that looks like a Swiss watch and selling it to someone who wants something that looks like a Swiss watch. The first is fraud against the end purchaser, whereas the second is at most possible trademark infringement.
It seems to me that those pressing for "anti-counterfeiting" laws are trying to conjure up the spectre of the first case, to get popular support without giving people the chance to think too hard about what would be fair legislation for the second case.
That is a very different aspect of intellectual property. While related in the broad scope, as far as the constraints of this report and the subject of downloading copy-written materiel go it is irrelevant.
I don't think you understood my point. If Switzerland's economy financed movies and depended on the revenue from those movies to employ people, their government would have a different view of people downloading free movies and music. It is a different aspect of intellectual property rights, but the argument is the same in both cases.
Mattee is still right that part of the decision from the Swiss gov comes from the fact that file sharing does not hurt the Swiss local economy (they explicitly say it).
I don't think there's anything wrong with it, they exploit their status of being a small country. The Swiss have always been ignoring other countries problems and only do what benefits them most (hence the fiscal situation and the protection of the bank industry).
Funnily enough, if I understand it correctly, it is illegal to import counterfeited goods into Switzerland and border guards will sometimes check your purchases when returning from holiday to make sure you haven't any in your luggage.
