It's different by being a _business_ model. There are things you can do privately, but you can't do them as a business. Uber drivers are not "giving someone a lift". They don't pick up people going to the same place that they wanted to go anyway. They specifically make a trip because they are paid to make a trip. They are taxis.

I really hope that Uber gets a jury that decides the company is breaking the law, has no intention to stop breaking the law, and therefore needs to be dissolved. With all the investment money divided up between the taxi drivers affected by their law breaking.

Did Rosa Parks get billions of dollars from investors and then use the money to bribe bus drivers not to accept any white passengers? I don't think so.

We are straight back to phones the size of a house brick. When the iPhone was released with a 3.5 inch screen, everyone thought it was _huge_.

Absolutely misunderstanding what the good judge said. If your server sends information to a hacker without the hacker asking for it, you would have a point. But that doesn't happen (or not very often).

I suppose from your post that you are one of those one-trick ponies that can do one thing and nothing else. What in hell does a major from 20 or 30 years ago have to do with anything?

The only thing that has changed is that a big American bully company with billions of dollars from investors ignores and deliberately flaunts the law. The existence of a bully who flaunts the law is not a reason to change the law, it is a reason to stamp out that bully.

Nobody says a company cannot arrange for people to get rides from private persons. For example, that has been done for more than 20 years in Germany. If you want to travel from Bremen to Munich, you find a Mitfahrzentrale which will find a person who wants to drive that way anyway and takes you with them.

Uber however arranges from people to get rides from legally professional drivers, who drive their car specifically from the place where you want to leave to the place where you want to go, for hard cash.

Well, what about a legislation change: If you train someone to do your job, and afterwards you are fired, this is taken as absolute evidence that the trainee shouldn't have been there under an H1B scheme, therefore needs to be sent home and the original worker be re-employed, with all wages paid as if he had been employed all the time; complaints can be filed for six years.

Result: If it happens to you, you can do whatever you like as long as your money lasts, then go to court and get your old job back plus all your wages paid. Being able to file a complaint for several years means it is a huge risk for the employer, which is what we want.

Ten years is the proposed _maximum_ for copyright infringement. For most crimes, there is a huge range of how bad the crime is. For example, growing pot: You might have a flower pot full, or you might have a 100 acre farm. Surely the maximum sentence should be fitting for the one using a huge farm to grow drugs. With copyright infringement, you might make a copy of a CD for a relative, or you might run a major operation with multi-million dollar revenue. You want a maximum sentence that fits the multi-million dollar operation.

Now of course it needs to be made clear which sentence is appropriate for which level of offence. For example, with copyright infringement there is probably a factor of one million in severity between the most harmless and the worst possible offenses.

Sure. Nobody stole anything. It's called stock manipulation, and if caught, someone will do a long jail sentence.

I have seen a road with a big sign "Truck drivers - your GPS is wrong". Not a bit of a problem for a mile. Then came a bit where I had problems squeezing my smallish car through (yes, I had to go careful to avoid losing either mirror), and any truck arriving there would have to reverse for a mile.

Since this isn't about absolutely avoiding left turns, but reducing the number, you could just count every right turn as a 10 second penalty, and every left turn as a 30 second penalty, and go on calculating the fastest route.

Nothing. But the poster you responded to said "if you call your app 'Apple Mail'", not "if you call your post-office based fruit delivery service 'Apple Mail'".

The details would be: What is the trademark, and to which trade does it apply? (For example, one place I worked used "Apple Security" as their security company, which was totally unrelated to the Apple Inc., with not the slightest trademark problem). And how are you using that trademark?

You are saying you are using a simple word in the dictionary. Apple is a normal word in the dictionary. Try using it for selling computers, software or music. At least give us enough for an educated opinion - even though people here are not lawyers, or not your lawyer.