My last post on this the New Vs. Old triggered a far to brief conversation at work about creative destruction and when it's "right" for creative destruction to occur. I felt that this was an interesting tact for approaching this sort of conversation. My colleague pointed out that when new businesses challenge laws that are in place just because you have to question if that's "right" or not.
First, what is creative destruction? I wrote about this over two years ago, so I'll forgive you not remembering. Essentially, it's whenever new businesses figure out new innovative ways to provide a service or technology that causes the previous service to be obsolete. Today, it's more popularly described as "disrupting a market."
So, looking at creative destruction and the laws that spring up around a given industry I believe that on the extreme there are only two types of laws. Those that protect the consumer/public/end user/employee and those that protect the industry. That's not to say that this isn't a gradient where the impact of a given law flows from protecting the public to the industry or in fact does both.
For example, Copyright used to protect both the people that produce music and the public. It did this by guaranteeing a state sanctioned monopoly for a short time period and upon expiration the public would then own the work. This enable the creation of the music industry and helped artists grow and make money. It wasn't perfect for either party, but it worked fairly well. We all know of stories of starving artists that died and then their works became popular. Well, currently those works still make someone money and that isn't good for the public. Now copyright lasts as long as 70 years past the death of the original artist. This clearly is no longer protecting the public but is protecting the industry. I would argue that with how far the pendulum has shifted it'd be moral to try to push the boundaries of these laws and creatively destroy the industry. This is currently happening with the copyleft movement.
In the last blog I wrote about AirBnB and discussed Uber in the one before that. These are very different than the music industry. Most cab companies have something called a medallion, which is something like a certification of quality for the vehicle and the cab driver. These are very expensive and have essentially a dual function of protecting both the public and the taxi industry. Uber is challenging these laws because it is a "ride sharing" program where you hail a person going in the direction you are, pay them some money and move on. The purpose of the company is to reduce expense of moving around a big city like San Francisco, increase the competition of the market, reduce the number of cars on the road, and to make money a different way. Depending on your point of view it's breaking the law. It's being sued and will likely continue to be sued.
Is it "right" for this company to operate this way? Well, there's the argument that you don't have to use Uber at all, so if you're concerned about the safety aspect you're mostly covered. Since it's a personal vehicle the general public is at no more risk than if the car was driving around with one person rather than two. The person is already on the road and likely would have been anyway, so if they suck at driving you're no more or less safe. However, it's still possibly in conflict with the law. It's a new way to hail a "cab" and the taxi companies are having problems adapting to the competition. So is it right or wrong? In this case, I don't really know. I think that it's "Right" that a company is forcing taxi companies to evaluate how they do business and to challenge the laws that are in place to protect the taxi industry. I think there could be risks to the public, but they aren't huge.
There's another aspect that I haven't talked about in this model though. A company like Yellow cab has subsidiaries in many different cities. While Uber is an application and it's "cabs" are in any city where a person is a member. There's a huge network effect benefit for Uber, they need to do little to no extra work and they can grow into new markets. Uber doesn't control which markets they enter to some extent or how quickly they grow in a given market, they can grow as fast as the market can support the growth. Yellow Cab has a much different growth potential and can't enter new markets as easily. If Uber is able to service an under serviced area shouldn't we support that? Isn't that "right." Furthermore, with this rapid growth model it's nearly impossible to know what laws they are going to be in conflict with until it's already in the market. Ignorance of course is no defense, but it removes some of the intentional aspects of the creative destruction.
I think that there are certainly moral questions that need to be asked around new businesses and business models. We should continue to ask them and work to make sure that if a new company is disrupting and industry the result is equal or greater protection to the public and a balance between changing laws that protect incumbent industry and the new entrant.