[osullip]

And operating illegally.

I'm not a fan of how taxis in Australia are operated, but the law was there to prevent unapproved businesses to pick up passenger.

The law was ignored and it impacted real people who had owned taxi licence plates, sometimes for generations. At $350k a pop, it was an asset that came under attack.

[martyvis]

It only was an "asset" because they created a restricted supply oligopoly. Somehow they were being rewarded for very ordinary service. Uber created a necessary disruption to shake up the identity.

[rvnx]

Licences could be non-transferable, to solve this "market".

In many jurisdictions these licences are given for free by the government, and can be sold 150k/200k+.

[barrkel]

That asset value is made out of rent. It has baked into it an assumption of market inefficiencies in the form of excess profits.

[Pokerface777]

you think $350k is a fair amount? if anything, the government should have be sued for this non-sense.

[resolutebat]

Won't somebody please think of monopoly rent seekers?

[jeltz]

Uber acted in the same shitty way and ran illegal taxis and price dumped even in places which did not have monopolies. This is their modus operandi, illegally enter new markets and then paying the fines and starting to follow the law once caught.