He already had investor monies and two customers.

I came here to post this also.

Prior art.

The writing of this article seems a bit 'choppy'.

Teleconferencing systems with a 'communal' screen and camera do not make much sense to me nowadays.

Most employees have at least 2 devices with built-in cameras and a screen that can be utilized for videoconferencing.

Give everybody a headset. Done.

we do that on many days, but the audio quality is so much better on the "mainframe" cisco setup.

Bizarre, do you have some really cheapo headsets or something? (Or let me guess...using your iPhone earpods?) In my role I've tested a lot of pricey speakerphone systems, and we find headset audio quality to be far superior in every circumstance.

no, the issue is that part of the team ends up in one conference room with 1 shitty conference phone. people don't speak up loud enough, don't speak into the mic, etc.. look up cisco ix5000 which is what I'm talking about. it's a whole 'nother beast.

yeah when everyone is on a headset it's fine as long as people mute themselves but when it's a few people on a headset and most in a conference room it's terrible.

No thanks! That adds chatter to the open office.

Uber does not force a price.

It is up to the driver to accept the fare.

I've been told that uber hides some of the information (either the price or the distance the driver has to go or both) which makes that not quite true.

I currently drive for Uber and both of these are 100% true When a request pops up all I see is the estimated time it'll take me to get to the pickup point, I also have exactly 10 seconds to accept a request.

Is this also true for Lyft?

If that is true than it is no better than the US healthcare system.

No. Take it or leave it is them dictating a price.

if i demand a $2mm salary, take it or leave it, i am not dictating a price; i am getting laughed out of the room and someone else is getting the job. uber is only dictating a price to the extent that lyft won't offer more.

firms like comcast, who may be the only ISP offering >25mbps in a particular area, are the ones who get to dictate a price.

Too much opacity in these markets, from the worker's side.

This is an excellent observation about white-labeling.

How is this not an antitrust issue, particularly considering past wage supression behaviors?

Hypothetical scenarios are not antitrust issues.

Would trademarks and patent terms remain the same?

Could they?

That would be less than a $100 million per year operating expendeture.

Which Yahoo shareholders would be irate about, and the Yahoo corporation could not trivially afford to throw away regardless. That would have destroyed about 1/4 of Yahoo's profit at the time.

That would be bad enough, however the next step by the government would be to increase the fine amount, were Yahoo to hold out over time. Kick it up to $1 million per day and Yahoo would have folded no matter what. The problem is pretty straight forward: the government could push it as high as necessary to compel the result they wanted.