Uber shuts down app that told drivers if Uber underpaid them
vice.com
vice.com
This will I fear, quite happily, will unleash the Streisand effect on UberCheats.
Uber bans UberCheats and founder savvily decides to fight it instead of relaunching under a new name. I predict he will end up with a seed round. Uber will end up with more reputation as being UberDark - as in we pick the dark pattern every time we can because why not.
It's an IMMENSLY complex calculation that will never be the same and thus gets driver complains all the time. Then the support team (at least used to) kindly show what caused the discrepancy and potentially adjusts the payout.
Source: Worked at and studied ridehailing apps for few years.
I can completely understand that the algorithm for driver selection/matching and calculations of possible different routes for those drivers between them and possible passengers can be quite complex, it also sounds a bit into the realm of the knapsack problem (weighing in all the different passengers and drivers to given an optimal set of matches) but I don't see necessarily how the route calculation/prediction with distance would be an immensely complex one.
And I'm completely open to gain more knowledge in this area to understand it and prove my naive assumptions of the problem domain wrong, feel free to shoot me down.
All kinds of things happen as you don't know the preferences of everyone in the system (does the rider want to get to the place as fast as possible, or as cheaply as possible?) and because choosing the most optimal route has random variance (stop lights, traffic etc.)
Also, there are multiple different pricing models at work constantly, at the same time, in different areas.
Some country might use a "taxi-meter-simulator" type methodology where the actual route of the driver is mapped via constant GPS and other positioning technology. This introduces the randomness of a certain % of GPS errors, which need to be corrected manually.
Other option might be a fixed price that is estimated upfront and agreed upon by both rider and driver.
Or sometimes the the fixed price is only agreed upon by the rider, and the driver gets paid via the "taximeter-style" method.
And after all this, if you want to take into account things like how to translate a pin position or restaurant name into the best possible GPS position? How to optimize what driver is the best to pickup the passenger? The lower rated driver that is close or the 5 star that is far? Can we change optimal drivers on the fly?
And it goes on and on, deeper and deeper.
Your post sounds like a troll. But ok.
A Uber contractor launches a plugin to show how Uber is shortchanging drivers because he claims he was shortchanged. Then Uber issues a takedown of that tool and you want us to trust you because you worked at Uber.
The plugin AIMS to do what you said. What it actually does is something else.
My god, don't tell me they are still doing this? The incompetence knows no bounds. Enough time to make their own chat app but no one around to dig up Dijkstra.
Someone posted here on Hacker News how Android sued him for his app for making use of the name 'droid' (i think) or something close to the logo (can't remember the exact details and can't find the post)
However apparently that was still unacceptable and it's currently named "rif is fun", and as much I like recursive acronyms it's a little ridiculous
Wouldn't an app be relatively easy for Uber to monitor and subvert?
Drivers are already sometimes coordinating to create surge pricing, and they don't need an app to do it: https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/uber-lyft-drivers-artificia...:
> While a reporter looked on, a group of about 50 drivers for both Lyft and Uber sat at their waiting area at Reagan National waiting while two drivers watched online to see when planes were about to land. After a plane lands, a lot of passengers request rideshare rides, which pushes demand up to begin with. But the drivers further tipped the imbalance between demand and supply by simultaneously turning off their apps five minutes before landing. Then two drivers stood at opposite ends of the waiting area, looking at the Uber and Lyft pricing for fares from the airport. They kept checking fares and watching the surge price increase until the fares were $13 higher than normal. At that point, they told the other drivers to turn their apps back on so they could begin accepting rides. The whole operation took less than two minutes, but now arriving passengers would pay around $13 more to reach their destinations.
And it's good that drivers are trying to do this organically, but I think there's value in doing this systematically and an easy to use anonymous way. Like if I wanted to participate in this at the Regan National, where do I sign up? Probably some group chat somewhere that I first have to chat-up one of the other drivers for.
I guess I want someone to make an app to monetize and gamify collective bargaining. If you want to skim 1-2% off the top or show me some dumb ads, sure. As long as you can squeeze that sweet VC lemon (or the rider) and make me more in the processes, it's all good.
I've actually created an app that maximizes hourly earnings for drivers, and I'm working on another. It's hard because the driver's TOS prohibits use of third-party apps to interact with the delivery company's servers. Just another way the definition of "independent contractor" is being stretched.
I wonder what percentage of regular full-time drivers need to participate for the occasional driver to not matter. But yeah, even if it did work there's always the threat of politicians being bought to make it illegal.
What are some legal precedents of independent contractors of similar scale being found guilty of collusion? I'm thinking one-man operations of plumbers, landscapers, handy-men, etc. Have they ever even colluded successfully?
Anyway, it’s just a copyright takedown. Change the name and move on.
Also, not every name containing a trademark is a trademark violation; for instance, while "UberCheats" violates the trademark on "Uber", a name like "Watcher for Uber" would not be. The general "XYZ for Trademark" as a descriptive phrase tends to sidestep trademark issues. But on the other hand, renaming it "RideshareCheats" would sidestep the legal issue entirely and also open the door to generalizing it to cover other such services.
Ultimately it’s up to the courts to decide. If your app could reasonably be confused for an official product of “Huevo” corp, it would constitute trademark infringement.
Otherwise, as the other poster says, it's just about avoiding confusion. There can be Bob's Hardware and Bob's Grocery store as separate trademarks.
This looks like a pretty clear trademark violation!
Rideshare Cheat Monitor for Uber would be MUCH safer than resuing an extremely similar sounding name. Or just RiderCheat Monitor.
Given they don't think their name is similar to UberEats / Uber, it makes me wonder whether they are scam of some sort as well.
The second issue is who decides whether it's infringing or not. I don't think Google should be calling that, the takedown should come from a court with the authority to make such orders.
Basically Google is turning into Team America: World Police, and I don't like that route. It's not that I think they should keep the name, it's just scary that once again, Google has completely fucked up someone's life without any kind of legal order.
The platforms don't have a lot of confidence in the timeliness of claim resolution through the court process, they have 10's to 100's of thousands of issues to address weekly. Trademark ripoff apps, apps ripping off copyright, content issues (child abuse / apps that promote violence). Waiting for legal orders on any of this would be time consuming and costly. So we are clear, courts take YEARS to resolve these things. They also operate globally. Developers in Israel and Egypt and the EU and the US. Cross border legal enforcement through the courts is very hard at scale currently and there are political differences as well.
My own sense, if govt provided more timely, effective and accurate relief and determinations, folks would be more comfortable with court involvement. But at least on commercial side, given both the politization of courts (which makes rulings both unpredictable and highly variable based on judges involved) and the delays in the process there is just an understanding that to maintain functional ecosystems the platform owners need to take a more hands on approach.
I'm in another field where basically everything has gone to arbitration agreements without exception because the court process is just broken for resolutions on larger scales.
Companies are getting very careful on this.
"If a subscriber/enrollee doesn't agree to arbitration, will Kaiser Permanente decline enrollment? A: Yes. If a subscriber/enrollee does not agree to arbitration, they (and their dependents) will NOT be able to enroll in a Kaiser Permanente plan."
So this is extending to nonprofits as well. What's really interesting is business to business (ie, both parties roughly similar negotiating authority) also going to arbitration. The big issue on the business side though is arbs tend to split awards (it's a safe call) rather than just destroying one person even if the case calls for that, and there is no appeal (which business doesn't like, they want at least one other crack at the apple).
The author can simply rename the app to "Cheats for Uber" and the app should pass.
In the past, unscrupulous people would prey on unintentional confusion by naming their upstart businesses similar to established competitors, for example. There was also rampant counterfeiting. You can still see this today in jurisdictions without strong trademark laws.
This is what trademark law originally aimed to protect us consumers from. Personally, I am happy with doing my own due diligence (let the buyer beware) rather than enacting regulatory laws subject to abuse by heavy-hitters, like in this example. This, of course, is my own personal opinion.
But who would think "UberCheats" is something by "Uber"?? I see no possible confusion and that's the whole point of trademark law.
Without any stringent way of codifying it, there will only be inconsistent enforcement, and there will be people who manage to slip through the cracks.
Uber has an UberEats already, maybe someone could think UberCheats are cheat codes or deals for UberEats? There is definitely room for confusion...
(don't know about trademark law, but do speak German)
Of course for some foreign words you have to make an exception. However, Uber has a pretty minimal presence in Germany, so I doubt many people know how it is 'supposed' to be pronounced.
In case you ever want to type German, have a look at using the US-Int layout on your US keyboard. It adds keyboard combinations like Alt+S = ß, "+U = Ü etc. It is a little cumbersome, but probably good enough for occasional foreign languages.
It also seems popular to use the Danish/Norwegian ø instead of o, one example is an energy drink called mønster.
I think they meant to write monster but tried to be cool, however mønster is a real word in Norwegian that translates to the English "pattern". Monster in Norwegian is the same as monster in English.
For reference, ø sounds like the i in the English word bird or e in herd or herbs.
Yes, absolutely. You can trademark almost anything (including logo colors or patterns), but the protections offered by trademark law are relatively narrow (or supposed to be).
For example, for a long time there were two major companies named Apple: the computer company making the Macinthosh, and the recording studio founded by the Beatles. Since they were operating in completely different markets (computers vs music distribution) they both were able to keep their respective trademarks; but either could have easily blocked a new company called Apple in their own market.
On the other hand apple goes after any little shop with a logo that looks remotely like a stylized fruit. I guess it's more about how big you are, not how right.
https://www.theregister.com/2014/01/27/microsoft_skydrive_re...