This is written very confrontational, but worth a discussion, so I vouched for it:

Google has been known to lock users out of all their services if they are believed to have violated the ToS of even one service.

Having self-driving cars from Google integrated into the same ecosystem could have serious repercussions for users, so is this wise? Do we need legal changes, or should Google just change their model for locking out users?

Forcing companies to serve users isn't really an option either, but Taxis have to do that — how can we solve these issues in a realistic way?

>Having self-driving cars from Google integrated into the same ecosystem could have serious repercussions for users, so is this wise? Do we need legal changes, or should Google just change their model for locking out users?

Break them up, and force the patents to be openly available for a nominal fee (like the patent on the transistor once was). Refuse to license a self-driving car for street use if a centralized firm, rather than the car's owner, can decide how it's used.

don't leave all the research to private companies. fund public research, make results free, increase competition.

We do fund public research.

It is then considered the "property" of the university, which is sold as IPR to the highest bidder to make money for the university. It is also summarily locked behind academic paywalls but there are some solutions to that (icanhazpdf , scihub).

We just fail on everything else in that sentence: make results free, and increase competition.

Things might change if those laws were revoked, turning public universities back to the public, and then funding them appropriately. 30% tax funding is not "funding"... Let the privates do what they want.

Is there a truly private quality university? When I say private, I mean one that is not considered a non-profit and thus pays no taxes on the piles of money it rakes in.