My favorite example is iCar - a private company that successfully broke into the taxi market in my city (Kraków, Poland) some 15 years ago. AFAIR, they exploited a legal loophole that, coupled with increasing popularity of GPS car navigation, let them run with a single taxi license for the entire company (vs. each driver). Legacy taxi drivers were pissed, there were few cases of tire slashing on both sides, then the courts got involved, taxi regulations got clarified, and the company is alive to this very day. I switched to them the moment I first heard of them, and rode with them up until MyTaxi came, offering an app that could be used not just to order a ride, but also pay for it.

> And the mafia connected taxi regime isn't sociopathic?

That's quite an accusation (going from "taxi mafia" to taxis connected to actual mafia), though I suppose it's true in some parts of the world.

Either way, sure, plenty of cities had their taxi services thoroughly broken. However, that doesn't justify fighting the bad with the worse. Despite the PR narrative they pushed, Uber wasn't some tiny upstart bravely fighting against the great taxi mafia - it was a VC backed corporation (later on, a multinational) fighting individual taxi networks in a divide-and-conquer fashion. And when I call Uber sociopathic, I don't just mean I don't like them - this particular company has a long documented history of antisocial behavior.

> If we're going to judge Uber for breaking this monopoly, let's also turn that same critical eye on the monopoly it broke.

Again, multinational corporation breaking city after city, in isolation? Also, I'm not judging Uber for being a monopoly. I'm judging them for being a morally bankrupt company that achieved market domination by breaking the law and only got away with it because they moved fast and burned through lots of investor money.