cambiondaystar has a point, and unfortunately most comments are ill-informed - most of you don't look past the tip of your nose. Others did that plain old American thing of taking a baseless trope and hold it as universal truth (look up "cheese eating surrender monkeys" on tvtropes.org). However, it is also true that the plaintiff will be in trouble if they don't work on their business model.
The problem here is not that Google is offering a service for free that the plaintiff offered for money; it's that they're offering a service for free and subsidise its operating costs through other activities: if Google Maps paid for its running costs only through adverts and paying subscribers to the "pro" version, then the case would be baseless. The plaintiff however complains that Google is offering the service at a loss, abusing its position as the main search engine to promote its service, thus stifling smaller companies by denying them access to that market.
And, just to to give you and idea, Microsoft had similar troubles a few years ago when it started bundling a free web browser with its OS; for that, it got a slap on the wrist from the US courts, and required a protracted case in the EU. This didn't stop them from forcing 10 years of IE6 on the whole web. Now, IE6 was a terrific product in 2001, but in 2011 it is considered the bane of web developers and users alike. And, without Mozilla and Free software in general, we'd still be stuck with it (don't get started on Safari and Chrome: look up Webkit and its roots in Konqueror), with no evolution in sight.
The debated risk here is that like Microsoft with IE before them, by providing Google Maps for free, Google is killing off all competition in the market of online cartography; once all competition is gone, Google can stop investing in Maps past minimal life support - effectively killing the market. They could then charge as much as they want for new features (maps more current than simply 3-10 years old photos, APIs more suitable than basic ones, or the simple requirement of using a Google-approved device or browser to make use of it...)
New entrants would need a massing amount of funds to simply enter the market, something that no innovative start-up could afford, and that no big company could get approved by its shareholders.
As such, the ruling is understandable; had it taken place in the US, Google would probably have bought better lawyers and stamped over the plaintiff, but due to the tighter law used in France (and Europe in general - as it stands, the German influence for written law did spread far), the winner isn't always the one with the deepest wallet - you'll notice that after 2 years in court, legal fees still only amount to $15000.
I'll conclude with a snarky comment: in Europe in general, and in France too, a trial is not a "get-rich-quick" matter like it is in the US; it's still a matter of justice.
Facebook
Twitter