Microsoft was punished for pumping a market with a free product, with its development supported by revenues from a monopoly product, so that they could afford to give it away where competitors could not. If Google offers something for free, kills off its competitors who were charging for their version, and then starts charging when they're the only ones left, then the French court has a point.
Even the headline in the linked article is absurd: "French court protectionis
Microsoft took technology that already existed and people already used and paid for and gave it away free until the competition died out. (Word/Word Perfect Anti-trust suit ??). With Browser technology they forced Windows VARS to install IE and play by a set of rules that said no competitive products could be installed (initial Anti-trust suit) even if the customer requested it. When busted, they spit in the courts face and forced vendors by forcing vendors to only install
Sorry but Google Maps was not a new product and neither was internet map services when Google acquired it. Mapquest was around since 1996 and even OpenStreetMap predates it and there were plenty of other services. But hey we gotta keep up the Google defenses!
Sorry, but you miss the very obvious point I made: What is Google charging for? It's not the Google Map service. It's the APIs so that you can access the Google data without Google services.
Comparing that to what Microsoft did, and does is simply ignorant. Sorry, no other way to put it. Ignorance can always be cured with education though.
The next person to mention spaghetti stacks to me is going to have
his head knocked off.
-- Bill Conrad
This was predicted to happen two years ago (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would it?
Microsoft was punished for pumping a market with a free product, with its development supported by revenues from a monopoly product, so that they could afford to give it away where competitors could not. If Google offers something for free, kills off its competitors who were charging for their version, and then starts charging when they're the only ones left, then the French court has a point.
Even the headline in the linked article is absurd: "French court protectionis
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Apples to Bananas comparison.
Microsoft took technology that already existed and people already used and paid for and gave it away free until the competition died out. (Word/Word Perfect Anti-trust suit ??). With Browser technology they forced Windows VARS to install IE and play by a set of rules that said no competitive products could be installed (initial Anti-trust suit) even if the customer requested it. When busted, they spit in the courts face and forced vendors by forcing vendors to only install
Re:This was predicted to happen two years ago (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry but Google Maps was not a new product and neither was internet map services when Google acquired it. Mapquest was around since 1996 and even OpenStreetMap predates it and there were plenty of other services. But hey we gotta keep up the Google defenses!
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but you miss the very obvious point I made: What is Google charging for? It's not the Google Map service. It's the APIs so that you can access the Google data without Google services.
Comparing that to what Microsoft did, and does is simply ignorant. Sorry, no other way to put it. Ignorance can always be cured with education though.