Hiring smart people is now considered a 'tool' move?

I expressed similar confusion in the last discussion of this, and a poster tried to make the case that Uber could have done this in a more responsible way, that preserved the private benefit but didn't destroy institutional seed corn in the process. I don't endorse it, but it's the best case I've seen against this move.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9606773

However, other comments suggest that the lab wasn't true academia anyway, but an applications-only wing that is non-profit in name only.

In case you're genuinely unaware of the various criticisms of Uber: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uber_%28company%29#Criticism_an...

No, I'm referring to the other issues in the wikipedia page posted by ceejayoz.

Two examples:

When I see news about Tesla, I have a positive reaction. They constantly release new technologies, open sourced their patents, and so on.

When I see a news piece about Uber, I think, "What'd they fuck up this time?".

News pieces about how Uber was attempting to encrypt/destroy data remotely in their Canadian office while a law enforcement raid was in progress......does not help their case.

Luckily in this case all of that has nothing to do with hiring smart people to try and improve their product.