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
Still trolling, I see. A few quick notes: * Google doesn't have a monopoly anywhere, even in search. * Google Maps is not given away, it sports ads, and the API costs money to access * You fail to mention Mapquest, or MS maps. Why just sue Google for its maps? Because it is the best one out there? * Why should Bottin be kept alive? Why not Garmin?
In short, you're wrong on two fundamental counts: that this is anything but protectionism of the most basic nature, and that somehow Google Maps is both special, and n
* Google doesn't have a monopoly anywhere, even in search.
Maybe you should stop being a child and trying to insinuate that the only way someone can have a monopoly is by being the only actor. That's not true, and hasn't been for a long time.
* Google Maps is not given away, it sports ads, and the API costs money to access
It was with respect to the developer API, which is what the case is about. You could use that API for FREE, not free + ads. And now that they are the dominant player in the space, and one could easily say they got there because they were free, they are raising their prices. That is the very definition of anti-competitive.
You fail to mention Mapquest, or MS maps. Why just sue Google for its maps? Because it is the best one out there?
Maybe you should stop being a child and trying to insinuate that the only way someone can have a monopoly is by being the only actor. That's not true, and hasn't been for a long time.
And maybe you should get some reading skills. I have the sneaking suspicion I know more about what it takes to be declared a monopoly, and what is actually a crime when it comes monopoly behavior than you. I provided a handy link a bit above in case you are interested.
And now that they are the dominant player in the space, and one could easily say they got there because they were free, they are raising their prices. That is the very definition of anti-competitive.
How does it differ from new companies offering a deal to anyone who tries them? Furthermore, you still haven't demonstrated that Google Maps is the dominant player in the space of online map services, or how Bottin somehow is affected by them.
Because they're the ones with the legal monopoly.
Utter fail. Look up "legal monopoly", "monopoly", "natural monopoly", and "monopolistics behavior". There are some subtle differences there that you are clearly utterly unaware of. Why are you talking again?
Why should Google Maps get to survive by subsidies from other Google divisions? Why can't they compete on their own?
You haven't demonstrated that Google Maps survives by subsidies from other Google divisions. Furthermore, demonstrate that that behavior is driving other online map services out of the business of providing said service. Finally, please demonstrate that given all these conditions, Google Maps differs from a product that is merely making a loss, being a loss leader, or somehow falls under the definition of monopolization or even leveraging of monopolies - at which point, please start the process all over for Google Search.
Yeah, legal definitions matter. Might want to learn them.
Look up "legal monopoly", "monopoly", "natural monopoly", and "monopolistics behavior". There are some subtle differences there
Yeah, like the fact that only one of them is a myth. This article [google.com] explains how natural monopoly arises from city government's monopoly ownership of roads and failure to efficiently price access to utility rights-of-way beneath the roads.
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:5, Informative)
Still trolling, I see. A few quick notes:
* Google doesn't have a monopoly anywhere, even in search.
* Google Maps is not given away, it sports ads, and the API costs money to access
* You fail to mention Mapquest, or MS maps. Why just sue Google for its maps? Because it is the best one out there?
* Why should Bottin be kept alive? Why not Garmin?
In short, you're wrong on two fundamental counts: that this is anything but protectionism of the most basic nature, and that somehow Google Maps is both special, and n
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
* Google doesn't have a monopoly anywhere, even in search.
Maybe you should stop being a child and trying to insinuate that the only way someone can have a monopoly is by being the only actor. That's not true, and hasn't been for a long time.
* Google Maps is not given away, it sports ads, and the API costs money to access
It was with respect to the developer API, which is what the case is about. You could use that API for FREE, not free + ads. And now that they are the dominant player in the space, and one could easily say they got there because they were free, they are raising their prices. That is the very definition of anti-competitive.
You fail to mention Mapquest, or MS maps. Why just sue Google for its maps? Because it is the best one out there?
Becaus
Re:This was predicted to happen two years ago (Score:3)
Maybe you should stop being a child and trying to insinuate that the only way someone can have a monopoly is by being the only actor. That's not true, and hasn't been for a long time.
And maybe you should get some reading skills. I have the sneaking suspicion I know more about what it takes to be declared a monopoly, and what is actually a crime when it comes monopoly behavior than you. I provided a handy link a bit above in case you are interested.
And now that they are the dominant player in the space, and one could easily say they got there because they were free, they are raising their prices. That is the very definition of anti-competitive.
How does it differ from new companies offering a deal to anyone who tries them? Furthermore, you still haven't demonstrated that Google Maps is the dominant player in the space of online map services, or how Bottin somehow is affected by them.
Because they're the ones with the legal monopoly.
Utter fail. Look up "legal monopoly", "monopoly", "natural monopoly", and "monopolistics behavior". There are some subtle differences there that you are clearly utterly unaware of. Why are you talking again?
Why should Google Maps get to survive by subsidies from other Google divisions? Why can't they compete on their own?
You haven't demonstrated that Google Maps survives by subsidies from other Google divisions. Furthermore, demonstrate that that behavior is driving other online map services out of the business of providing said service. Finally, please demonstrate that given all these conditions, Google Maps differs from a product that is merely making a loss, being a loss leader, or somehow falls under the definition of monopolization or even leveraging of monopolies - at which point, please start the process all over for Google Search.
Yeah, legal definitions matter. Might want to learn them.
Re: (Score:2)
Look up "legal monopoly", "monopoly", "natural monopoly", and "monopolistics behavior". There are some subtle differences there
Yeah, like the fact that only one of them is a myth. This article [google.com] explains how natural monopoly arises from city government's monopoly ownership of roads and failure to efficiently price access to utility rights-of-way beneath the roads.