SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Having looked in the last few days at the problems of insurance and Uber drivers, the City of Toronto will file the paperwork to take another legal crack atshutting down Uber, but it hasn't decided whether it will actually follow through. The previous attempt failed. Lawyer Matthew Cornett confirmed Friday the city will serve a notice of appeal Tuesday to challenge Judge Sean Dunphy's Superior Court ruling.
"This will preserve our right to appeal (within the 30 day-limit)," Cornett said.
Last month, Dunphy denied the city's application for an injunction against the ridesharing company, ruling Uber isn't operating a taxi cab or limousine service. A lawyer for the city had argued Uber should fall under the same licensing requirements that govern taxi brokerages because "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then you should call it a duck." Dunphy disagreed.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Sunday August 02 2015, @06:07PM
From the second link in TFS:
I'd be interested in reading the actual decision, but this seems ridiculous -- an extension of "on the internet" being completely new and patentable or copyrightable or whatever.
Clearly, Uber does not consider this to be "ridesharing" -- ridesharing is when two people who happen to be going the same way share a ride. If the driver is not going the same way as the rider, and the driver is instead exercising an "earning opportunity" to drive people around, then that is exactly like a taxi, the only difference being that the ride is not set up by telephoning a cab company and requesting a cab, but by using a cell phone to access the internet and request a cab. That is soooo amazingly different! /sarc
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday August 02 2015, @06:10PM
Actual decision: http://www.scribd.com/doc/270489823/Dunphy-J-City-of-Toronto-v-Uber-Canada-July-03-2015 [scribd.com] (Only the first page is sideways)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Sunday August 02 2015, @06:52PM
I get the impression that this judge is a pedant of the highest order, the type who is so smug and smart, he's an idiot.
From the decision:
Note, I skimmed this decision, did not read it in depth, but these things jumped out at me.
Par. 54: Judge ignored statutory language in the definition of a taxi owner which includes licensed cabs OR those required to be licensed (i.e., unlicensed cabs). Under the judge's ruling, all you need to avoid cab regulation is not get yourself licensed. What a ridiculous reading of the plain language. In par 57 the judge makes the pretty sounding but non-sensical argument that if Toronto's definition of taxi was used, it would make the definition of limousine superfluous, which is weird because the limo definition has certain requirements for the car as well as a built in 20 minute booking delay (par. 20). Fitting licensed and unlicensed taxis into the law as written, would have no impact on the limo requirements.
Par. 64: Uber is not a limousine service because:
1 - drivers can choose to accept or decline a ride (is this untrue with a taxi -- if someone looks totally crazy when the cabbie pulls, wouldn't he decline the ride);
2 - no calls are made, instead an app is used (yeah -- "on the internet" -- how earthshatteringly novel);
3 - no evidence that uber is responsible for relaying the ride request (that would be a great business model for uber, blackhole all ride requests).
Starting at Par 65: long section about the meaning of "accept" and a ruling that because the matching is computer generated, without human thought involved, uber never "accepts" anything. Par. 67. Talk about a ridiculously absurd pedantic reading. Essentially, the judge has ruled that all contracts that are completed by a computer are void. Amazon better look out because I highly doubt there is a person sitting at the other end of every transaction going "oh yeah, we'll bill your card and send you this doodad." If there is no deal because the acceptance, billing, and shipping system are automated (some human robots involved in shipping, but they aren't making decisions, just following computer generated commands) then what happens when buyers start receiving goods and then reversing the credit charges? There was no deal you see, because no human accepted the transaction. Sure, there'd be an argument for constructive acceptance because Amazon performed its end of the bargain, but then in Uber's case, if the paid ride was completed, that would also be constructive acceptance.
Anyway, Judge Dunphy sounds like a brilliant moron.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Monday August 03 2015, @03:56AM
He's basing the decision on the same sort of "technicalities" that let the guilty go free, and law is decided on the letter of the law, and not the intent. Almost all law seems to need a serious refactoring, I think.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday August 03 2015, @05:33AM
Actually, he is ignoring the plain language of "taxi owner" and engaging in clever interpretative shenanigans.
On a side note, when you say "technicalities" what you mean is the Bill of Rights. Not to worry though, through similar interpretative tricks we are almost completely done with that, and then, nobody will get off on a technicality, not even the innocent. That old saw "it's better that 10 guilty go free than one innocent be convicted" is not about empathy for the innocent person, it's a recognition of the sheer destructive power and capricious nature of unrestrained government. Unshackled government power is orders of magnitude more dangerous to the population than any crook could ever be.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Monday August 03 2015, @04:54PM
Oh, I agree, hence "technicalities" being quoted. The same technique is used to charge people who are innocent of what most would consider the intent of the law, although much less frequently. I still think a lot of it could be made much more clear by cleaning up the way laws are written.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @02:25PM
No, officer, I don't need a driving license. You see, I didn't drive this car. I was only pressing pedals and turning the steering wheel. Last I checked, neither pressing pedals nor turning a wheel required a driving license.