Of course I do. The fight should be fought within a reasonable expectation that it isn't impeding the progress of mankind. These aren't living entities that I should feel sympathy for after all. The idea that when they cease to exist they have some "death"? They're not people. If something doesn't go well, you don't [usually] die... you go do the next thing. If there's no longer a market for the product, it has no right to continue to exist for the sake of shareholders 'feelings' (read as: investment portfolios)...
It is a reasonable expectation. They are fighting to survive. And find time to transition to something else more profitable.
A more graceful way is to make the govt data available for import. And then build products around that data. And that gives way to open source solutions in the future. And other projects too.
It might be an expectation of a corporation to attempt to stay in business. I will concede that. It's harder to say that I can't blame them for doing so in underhanded ways. Expectation and blame are not married.
Just yesterday I was in a driving situation in which I lost visual sight of an intersection that is usually very busy (because oncoming cars are pilling up around a 90 degree bend and blocking visual just on the other side of the bend). This is a fairway for me without any traffic signals. While the intersection into the fairway has a stop sign (T style intersection). Because visual was lost, I made the decision to lower my speed considerably in EXPECTATION that a car would enter the roadway dispite not safte to do so. Normal speed for this roadway is 60mph but I lowered to 40mph. I did not hit them because I expected them. I still honked though.
Good for you. Even though you had the right of way, you anticipated people to be unsafe drivers, and adjusted yourself instead of demanding they do better.
Now imagine this sensibility being taken and stretched across a wide spectrum of people. You will find all sorts of behavior of people trying to be safe but making the roads frustrating and patience challenging. The point is that a judgement call works in a few limited scopes in really good ways. Other times, it does not work.
And so expectations of others is limited to what they understand. In this case, it is for their survival.
But that is capitalism. Invent a solution to a problem. And then profit from solution. Then fight everyone else who also tries to solve the problem. And also keep the problem going.
Capitalizing off a broken system means inventing and selling solutions. And keeping the system broken.
Law firms work to keep the laws complicated. So that you need lawyers.
Mechanics work to keep car parts difficult to self repair. So that you need mechanics.
Tech hardware companies work to keep the repair business running smoothly. Otherwise the repair industry is gone. And so is the repair servicing for their product.
Oil companies work to keep car on oil and not natural gas. So that you need oil. When oil company owns a natural gas business, do you find that either they don’t care or push everyone to the items more profitable.
Train companies (obsolete) work to keep people traveling (no work from home). And alternative transportation suppressed. So govt forbid train companies to invest in bus companies. Or the other way around.
Yeah. But they are trying to curb the repair market to their selected vendors (themselves). It is like the dealership that makes half the money from car repair and the other half from car sales. Then you have independent repair garages fighting dealership garages from making warranty rules that break warranty if other people were to repair them.
Do you feel it is a business’ right to “survive” to the detriment of citizens? Further is this even “survival”? Is there a right to a certain amount of profits in the face of damage to citizens? Dumping waste in rivers is more cost effective, do businesses have a right to that?
> it is a business’ right to “survive” to the detriment of citizens
No. It is a business's responsibility to survive. And responsibility to profit For the future and protection of its workers. And the rights that extend from that responsibility means that you try to keep threats to the business reduced. The rights do not extend to hurting others for the mere protection of your own.
Such was the case in competition between Uber and Lyft, where Uber founder tried to sabotage Lyft's funding. This is not helping Uber. Just hurting Lyft. If Lyft on the other hand were to fund Uber's competitor in certain markets, that would be ok. Because someone else is being helped.
