Never said the current system was great or efficient.
"Now, when your flight's coming in to land, you can order a ride on your cellphone"
At 3AM? What if no Uber drivers feel like working that shift? Maybe they do, but you can't just leave it up to chance. Edge cases matter and you still haven't answered how to handle them except waving your hands saying it will be ok.
The problem of having no taxis available at all hours was solved via regulations and the medallion systems. Just solve that problem with Uber and it's a non-issue. Problem is nobody seems willing to do so.
'Efficient' means some people don't get served because they aren't a profitable customer.
Taxis in a major city are effectively a piece of the transportation infrastructure. In DC, a single company is contracted to serve Dulles airport. Why? Because it isn't profitable for a lone taxi to sit at the airport at 3am on the off chance someone might need a ride.
It's an edge case, but when applying infrastructure to a city you need to serve everyone, subsidizing the expensive with the cheap.
If Uber is able to cherry pick only the profitable (efficient) customers the existing Taxis end up with only the unprofitable customers and go out of business. Now what? Do you *require* Uber to have people standing by at the airport at 3am? Hell is there even anyone on call at 3am? At what price?
These are questions nobody here seems to ever want to answer in the defense of the new and shiny.
Exactly. Perhaps comparing the GPS locations of the car and of the phone may help.
Or in the simplest case, are the 'relay' devices 1 way or 2 way? Having a back and forth handshake would at least require 2 way communication...or have something that requires a some delay that allows your phone to notify you and give you the option to say 'no' before it unlocks itself (and of course alert you that hey someone is unlocking your car!).
The exact way it was handled? They talked to him and determined he wasn't a threat. Keep monitoring for hints of actual plans but until then he's just a lunatic ranting...which isn't a crime or many of us would have incarcerated grandparents.
on the raising of capital front, indeed the recent years have shown a remarkable trend toward the little guy being able to do this effectively and nimbly. A very good development.
Implicit assumption #2: The selling of the patent actually transfers something useful towards the actual innovation
The innovation itself is entirely separate from the patent. One is real, the other is an entirely made up legal construct - so no the patent isn't going to do anything to the actual innovation. Except encourage people to innovate because there is some possible 'reasonable' return on their effort; which is the point no?
And yet, you almost never see cases of someone selling a patent to encourage development of some new technology
Never said that. Being small enough that you can't adequately bring it to market is an entirely valid reason for selling the patent. Some people are 'idea people' who are better suited to coming up with new innovative ideas but aren't good at bringing it to market. They should be given protection shouldn't they?
If they want to try and fail to bring something to market...that's up to them, but selling their patents to someone who can would seem to be a way to encourage yet more innovation.
It's a reasonable argument whether this is truly *needed* anymore, but it does encourage innovation. As to whether the existence of patent trolls negates that encouragement...perhaps, but simply throwing out the patent system entirely wouldn't be a great thing either.
The 'knowledge transfer' also likely doesn't happen if someone figures something out in the garage but doesn't take it further because they won't see any return from the effort.
The internet and modern connectivity are certainly helping people transfer vast amounts of knowledge without the patent system, but I would disagree that it isn't still a useful tool to be used.