Google Fined $660,000 For Making Google Maps Free

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
even if google's competitors went out of business and google then started charging a fee, another competitor would pop up and undercut google. this back and forth would keep prices low if not free. this court decision is actually doing the opposite of their stated goal and creating an anti-competitive market. the government should just leave the market alone.
 
Lets get this straight. Google giving away maps for free is only bad because some day they might start taking advantage of consumers by selling maps, which could be illegal. This according to a company that sells maps.

Ah. You would think watching failed ideas(Eg governments trying to outlaw competition in the name of persevering competition) turn into self parodies would be more amusing; but at this point its just pathetic.
 
Google giving away a free service: Criminal.

Apple patents a gesture: Totally OK.

This is why anti-trust, patent, and copyright laws need to be rewritten for the digital age.
 
The court is prejudging google for what it thinks google might do in the future. Let's see, we'll jail you now because we think you might commit a crime in the future. They might as well fine all charitable institutions for giving out free services competing against others that charge a fee.
 
This is what happens when some people's mind just get stuck in the old ways. They couldn't keep up with the rapidly changing tech world.
 
Awaiting Microsoft to sue all Linux distro, the newspaper companies to sue online news because its free, So in France if it thing is free it is illegal! wtf
 
You all miss the point.
The point is not that Google is giving its maps service away for free. It is that they are using an other part of the company (the advertising part) to pay for the mapping part.

And THAT is anti-competative behaviour.
 
[citation][nom]Hari271[/nom]First para last sentence is misleading - It should be read "fee" rather than "free"[/citation]

It can be interpreted both ways:

'Google was offering a service that one French company provided for free'

It can mean that Google was offering a service for free which one French company provided....

or

It can mean that Google was offering a service which was provided by a French company free of charge.

So yeah it's unclear, but not necessarily wrong.
 
my first question would be who was first? Google maps, or the 'competitor' as far as I'm concerned that should matter most.

If google maps existed before the competitor, then it's not really anti-competitive, since it was free from the start.
 
Yeah ... it's called "having an advantage because all your eggs aren't in one basket." Small businesses have been competing against big businesses this way since the free market was invented. Time to stop being so butthurt and figure out a business model that works.
 
[citation][nom]capt_taco[/nom]Yeah ... it's called "having an advantage because all your eggs aren't in one basket." Small businesses have been competing against big businesses this way since the free market was invented. Time to stop being so butthurt and figure out a business model that works.[/citation]
No, it's called "having an advantage because you have a big pile of money and you can use it to strangle small businesses"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.