Innovation (and Uber) Wins in Boston

My friend the tech guru Tim O’Reilly has a great way to phrase the choice facing regulators, bureaucrats, and other policy makers in this situation: they can protect the future from the past, or protect the past from the future. As someone who likes innovation and progress, I usually advocate the former path, which in this case would mean simply letting Uber operate (after all, it only works with licensed, professional town car drivers). Incumbents almost always favor the latter.

Sadly, regulators often do, too, and seem predisposed to favor the past over the future.

There are several possible reasons for this. One is that they’re too close to the incumbents, and so inclined to share their views about competition. Another is that regulators, like other workers, like to justify their existences by being and appearing busy. And the way regulators do this is by, well, regulating stuff. A final possible reason is simply that power corrupts, and regulators get fond of throwing their weight around (my worst encounters with TSA agents at airports provide some support for this view).
— Harvard Business Review