Reporter totally misses the point. The point is that google provided google maps for free. That is great. except when all other competition dies (because who can compete with a better, freer version of your product?) google starts charging pretty rediculous rates.
That move in itself is what contributed to the ruling. OSM is free for everyone. It is a wiki. If OSM destroys google, bing, etc, and then decides to go on a charging spree (it can't) then it would also face similar decisions.
So the answer to a monopolist commoditizing a market is... to introduce a cartel? Because this is basically what this judgement argues: Google should charge something in line to what its competitors do, and forget about any downward pressure on prices.
I'm not a free-market zealot, but this sort of ruling is really bad for small players. Googlers understand the internet and so they make money while lowering prices for consumers, why should we punish them for this? Then we might as well say the copyright mafia is right and the internet should be tightly regulated and controlled by cartels.
"That is great. except when all other competition dies (because who can compete with a better, freer version of your product?) google starts charging pretty rediculous rates."
This is what happened with big malls in Europe, small retailers could not compete in price so they got out of business. Now some of the malls have bigger prices that what small retailers had, as they have way less competition. E.g Carrefour bought all the malls here so all them are Carrefour now.
Google maps includes sponsored locations when you search for things on the map.
Are we going to also prosecute Google for providing free web search, making it impossible to make a competing search engine that charges users 10 Euro cents per query?
Why couldn't competition spring up once google starts charging ridiculous rates? It's not as if competition dies forever. It dies until someone else figures out how to do it better.
I agree, except with your OSM component. I'm not sure it matters that OSM is non-profit. They still can produce similar effects as a for-profit version.
Didn't they start charging because they started getting sued for offering it free of charge?
And according to other reports it's apparently illegal in France to offer something for free if it costs money to develop. But what about those who enjoyed using the free stuff and even built businesses on top of it?
From Sowell's article:
It is a commentary on the development of antitrust law that the accused must defend himself, not against actual evidence of wrongdoing, but against a theory which predicts wrongdoing in the future. It is the civil equivalent of "preventive detention" in criminal cases -- punishment without proof.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure include a requirements that plaintiffs plead on facts rather than possibilities, and have done since the 70s or so. Sowell omits to mention that the Sherman act passed at the end of the 19th century was a response to trusts using novel legal vehicles to circumvent rules against cross-shareholding designed to establish a monopoly. It's not great law (and has arguably been hollowed out over the last 30 years), but market failure was a persistent problem when it was put in place.
Predatory pricing does exist, but several conditions have to be true of the commodity being priced. It must be a rival good, it's production has to have high-barriers to entry and it cannot have easy substitutes.
In the case of online maps, none of those is true. Which is why so many HN readers are surprised by this.
See it that way, when does predatory begins? As a matter of Fact Google Maps is already the biggest on the market with a price next to 0 for users. If we would compare it to something in real life it would: "Somebody has given to a group of people a serious death threat". Then in that case you'd need a punishment.
Anyway, I read some of the comments on this story and I believe take attacks on websites and companies as personal offense. Nothing could be far from reality. A society has to maintain a balance and competition is GOOD. Allowing Google to phagocyte the whole Maps business is not beneficial at all for society as a whole. Actually it's quite bad, even for users.
The French government is not racist, they don't want to attack or kill Google, they want a favorable ecosystem for innovation and fair competition. Google is a big business that can use its other services to temporarily dump prices on one of its product to totally wipe out competition, there need to be safeguards!
As the comments on the article point out, this seems to be about the enterprise maps service to businesses which ordinarily is at a cost.
From Le Monde[1]:
"As such, it considered that Google Maps distorted the rules of free competition by providing the same service to businesses while it undergoes costs to design the product."
["A ce titre, elle considérait que l'application Google Maps faussait les règles de la concurrence en offrant gratuitement aux entreprises le même service alors qu'elle-même subit des coûts pour concevoir son produit."]
The enterprise service FAQ[2] contains:
"Google Maps API for Business is extremely cost-effective, starting at just $10,000 per year. Pricing is based on the number of map page views for externally facing websites. For internal uses, it is based on page views or number of vehicles being tracked. Please contact us for more information."
I just wanted to change your translation (Google translate?) a bit. I think this is truer to the original French:
Hence they (Bottin Cartographes) considered that the Google Maps application broke competition rules by offering the same service to businesses for free, even though Google itself incurred costs to build the product."
How come we assume that Google is going to start charging as soon as competitors died?
I draw analogies with the IE vs Netscape history. When IE became bundled for free in Windows, Netscape open-sourced its code to survive.
Where would the browser be today had a judge ruled that Microsoft cannot do this and that Microsoft (and Netscape) should continue charging for their product?
When IE was bundled into Windows for free Netscape sued in federal court, and won. The DOJ intervened and lessened the impact of the ruling.
Meanwhile, Netscape died. They got bought by AOL and they open-sourced their code as a consequence of dying and becoming mostly a disembodied brand, not as an attempt to survive.
While you can use the Google Maps API for free, it has actually some pretty limiting restrictions:
Google Maps/Google Earth APIs Terms of Service, 9.1.1 General Rules, (a):
"(a) Free Access (No Fees). Your Maps API Implementation must be generally accessible to users without charge and must not require a fee-based subscription or other fee-based restricted access. This rule applies to Your Content and any other content in your Maps API Implementation, whether Your Content or the other content is in existence now or is added later."
I am not a lawyer, but I think that would limit solutions where you use the Google Maps API within any Log In based, payed service.
There seems to be an exception for mobile applications though, see "9.1.2 Exceptions (b)", and if you have certain agreements with or permissions from Google, "9.1.2 Exceptions (a)":
http://code.google.com/apis/maps/terms.html#section_9_1_2
If you do not comply with the Free Access (No Fees) requirements, you have to use the "Google Maps API for Business", and the price starts (currently) at $10.000,
see:
"What is the cost of Google Maps API for Business?"
http://www.google.com/enterprise/earthmaps/maps-faq.html
The people this is going to hurt the most are the citizens and businesses in France. No company or entrepreneur is going to want to setup shop in a country where success is punished. No creator, achiever or pursuer of excellence will desire to go to France if they risk being sued the moment they become successful enough to be worth it. Argue all you want that this is about "monopolies" and "anti-competitive" behavior, but what this is really about is greed. The greed of Bottin Cartographes, jealous of Google's success, using a government that doesn't respect private property rights to steal from another. This is reprehensible behavior on behalf of the government, its people, and anyone here who defends it.
If the only differentiating factor between the "monopoly" and a local business is price, the "monopoly" is going to win every time, and this is in fact a _good_ thing and best for everyone as it rewards successful business models. The "monopoly" didn't become successful because it was handed to them, it had to compete and earn it, and now it's enjoying the fruits of its labor. If on the other hand it did not earn its position, but instead lobbied or procured favors from government officials, then it deserves to be shut down, broken up, etc... as this is what's known in a free market as corruption.
Competition does not die in the face of a stronger competitor. Competition dies when rewards are removed and you take away the purpose for competing. Reward inferior products and call it justice, and you'll get more of the same.
Ask yourself this; If this were to happen in Silicon Valley, would Silicon Valley as we know it continue to exist? Doubtful.
If a monopolist offers a product for free just because they have plenty of cash to do so, all rewards to compete in that market are removed. That kills competition stone dead, and that's why we have laws against it all over the world, including Silicon Valley.
Guarding the free market against monopolist abuse is standard operating procedure in all capitalist countries.
Bottin just happens to be the first to take this to court, and happened to have found a judge willing to listen. This could have happened anywhere, it just happened to be in France this time.
You may argue the court was wrong in this case, but the basic principle is part and parcel of every free market economy.
Doesn't this assume users have no choice? If a better map product came along, couldn't they also make it free (to compete with Google's future raised prices) and then when Google is bankrupt, raise the price? Isn't this totally ignoring the business model and claiming a monopoly on price alone? What's the barrier to entry? Is Google blocking competing map provider's search results?
Even if Google doesn't start to charge high fees once the others are driven out of business, it would still be bad for the industry. Since no one can compete with Google's deep pockets, they have a monopoly on any improvements, changes. The barriers to entry are high; raw mapping of large land areas is hugely expensive and complicated. So the industry would shrivel as a result.
I think in most places Google licenses mapping data (usually you can see the credit in a watermark somewhere on the map).
So I'm not sure that argument works - Google is paying for the data like everyone else. The problem is they were giving the service (curated data) away.
This has nothing to do with the free Google Maps but instead the use in Enterprise which normally carries a hefty price tag. Software products do promotions all the time - it's still up to the user to decide whether the future costs of the software/updates are worth it.
Maybe it's a little unfair to the smaller players but illegal? I see it as a promotion to get the Enterprise version some extra users and increase publicity. It's competition. Google can afford to lower their price or give it away free to gain customers, this is bad? What if their promotion didn't give it away but went half price? 1/5th price? Who decides what level Google can cut their price as a temporary promotion?
Some people should actually read the court arguments before post,
the French court didn't just applied the fine, it was based on Google acts: when all other competitors dies google will start charging... with low price rates.
is it fair?
1. Start a Youtube competer that charges money for uploading videos.
2. Sue Google for providing this for free
3. Profit???
But seriously the french authorities are either corrupt or morons, or maybe both, Google has another business model, Google does not want to sell Maps as a service(not talking about the API) it wants to sell ads, big difference. Basically Google gets punished for having a better business model.
This seems ridiculous if it is the free version of the Google Maps API. But, if Google is offering the paid-for Business version of the API for free, then Bottin has a case. I don't see it stated anywhere if the case specifically targeted the free or business version of the API. Does anyone know?
Would a company get convicted under the same law if it was backed by an entity with unlimited (a lot of) cash and gained a dominant position because of the backing entity?
I'm not defending Google, just wondering if the case I describe above is the same as what Google was doing?
[+] [-] dlikhten|14 years ago|reply
That move in itself is what contributed to the ruling. OSM is free for everyone. It is a wiki. If OSM destroys google, bing, etc, and then decides to go on a charging spree (it can't) then it would also face similar decisions.
Kudos to the french for this.
[+] [-] toyg|14 years ago|reply
I'm not a free-market zealot, but this sort of ruling is really bad for small players. Googlers understand the internet and so they make money while lowering prices for consumers, why should we punish them for this? Then we might as well say the copyright mafia is right and the internet should be tightly regulated and controlled by cartels.
[+] [-] forgottenpaswrd|14 years ago|reply
This is what happened with big malls in Europe, small retailers could not compete in price so they got out of business. Now some of the malls have bigger prices that what small retailers had, as they have way less competition. E.g Carrefour bought all the malls here so all them are Carrefour now.
[+] [-] mlinsey|14 years ago|reply
Are we going to also prosecute Google for providing free web search, making it impossible to make a competing search engine that charges users 10 Euro cents per query?
[+] [-] thematt|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oh_sigh|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tichy|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jhancock|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] yanw|14 years ago|reply
And according to other reports it's apparently illegal in France to offer something for free if it costs money to develop. But what about those who enjoyed using the free stuff and even built businesses on top of it?
[+] [-] te_platt|14 years ago|reply
From Sowell's article: It is a commentary on the development of antitrust law that the accused must defend himself, not against actual evidence of wrongdoing, but against a theory which predicts wrongdoing in the future. It is the civil equivalent of "preventive detention" in criminal cases -- punishment without proof.
[+] [-] anigbrowl|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] olefoo|14 years ago|reply
In the case of online maps, none of those is true. Which is why so many HN readers are surprised by this.
[+] [-] yannickmahe|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] victork2|14 years ago|reply
See it that way, when does predatory begins? As a matter of Fact Google Maps is already the biggest on the market with a price next to 0 for users. If we would compare it to something in real life it would: "Somebody has given to a group of people a serious death threat". Then in that case you'd need a punishment.
Anyway, I read some of the comments on this story and I believe take attacks on websites and companies as personal offense. Nothing could be far from reality. A society has to maintain a balance and competition is GOOD. Allowing Google to phagocyte the whole Maps business is not beneficial at all for society as a whole. Actually it's quite bad, even for users.
The French government is not racist, they don't want to attack or kill Google, they want a favorable ecosystem for innovation and fair competition. Google is a big business that can use its other services to temporarily dump prices on one of its product to totally wipe out competition, there need to be safeguards!
[+] [-] aprescott|14 years ago|reply
From Le Monde[1]:
"As such, it considered that Google Maps distorted the rules of free competition by providing the same service to businesses while it undergoes costs to design the product."
["A ce titre, elle considérait que l'application Google Maps faussait les règles de la concurrence en offrant gratuitement aux entreprises le même service alors qu'elle-même subit des coûts pour concevoir son produit."]
The enterprise service FAQ[2] contains:
"Google Maps API for Business is extremely cost-effective, starting at just $10,000 per year. Pricing is based on the number of map page views for externally facing websites. For internal uses, it is based on page views or number of vehicles being tracked. Please contact us for more information."
Slightly changes the story.
[1]: http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2012/02/01/google...
[2]: http://www.google.com/enterprise/earthmaps/maps-faq.html
[+] [-] demallien|14 years ago|reply
Hence they (Bottin Cartographes) considered that the Google Maps application broke competition rules by offering the same service to businesses for free, even though Google itself incurred costs to build the product."
[+] [-] toyg|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] babarock|14 years ago|reply
I draw analogies with the IE vs Netscape history. When IE became bundled for free in Windows, Netscape open-sourced its code to survive.
Where would the browser be today had a judge ruled that Microsoft cannot do this and that Microsoft (and Netscape) should continue charging for their product?
[+] [-] abrahamsen|14 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
Microsoft would have been split into two if the DOJ had not interfered.
[+] [-] InclinedPlane|14 years ago|reply
Meanwhile, Netscape died. They got bought by AOL and they open-sourced their code as a consequence of dying and becoming mostly a disembodied brand, not as an attempt to survive.
[+] [-] mattmanser|14 years ago|reply
But seriously, the general consensus is that IE was a Bad Thing in the long run.
Also Netscape did not open-source the code 'to survive'. Don't reinvent history.
[+] [-] rmc|14 years ago|reply
Google are already charging for Google Maps access.
[+] [-] pavel_lishin|14 years ago|reply
Hope for the best, prepare for the worst, I suppose.
[+] [-] alexis-d|14 years ago|reply
What's next? Microsoft to sue Google because Docs are free?
[+] [-] hokkos|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexis-d|14 years ago|reply
I mean the Microsoft/Google thing was a half serious, half joke question.
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] yogsototh|14 years ago|reply
The next time they'll sue Linux or the free press.
[+] [-] wolfhumble|14 years ago|reply
Google Maps/Google Earth APIs Terms of Service, 9.1.1 General Rules, (a): "(a) Free Access (No Fees). Your Maps API Implementation must be generally accessible to users without charge and must not require a fee-based subscription or other fee-based restricted access. This rule applies to Your Content and any other content in your Maps API Implementation, whether Your Content or the other content is in existence now or is added later."
See: http://code.google.com/apis/maps/terms.html#section_9_1_1
I am not a lawyer, but I think that would limit solutions where you use the Google Maps API within any Log In based, payed service.
There seems to be an exception for mobile applications though, see "9.1.2 Exceptions (b)", and if you have certain agreements with or permissions from Google, "9.1.2 Exceptions (a)": http://code.google.com/apis/maps/terms.html#section_9_1_2
If you do not comply with the Free Access (No Fees) requirements, you have to use the "Google Maps API for Business", and the price starts (currently) at $10.000, see: "What is the cost of Google Maps API for Business?" http://www.google.com/enterprise/earthmaps/maps-faq.html
[+] [-] eldude|14 years ago|reply
If the only differentiating factor between the "monopoly" and a local business is price, the "monopoly" is going to win every time, and this is in fact a _good_ thing and best for everyone as it rewards successful business models. The "monopoly" didn't become successful because it was handed to them, it had to compete and earn it, and now it's enjoying the fruits of its labor. If on the other hand it did not earn its position, but instead lobbied or procured favors from government officials, then it deserves to be shut down, broken up, etc... as this is what's known in a free market as corruption.
Competition does not die in the face of a stronger competitor. Competition dies when rewards are removed and you take away the purpose for competing. Reward inferior products and call it justice, and you'll get more of the same.
Ask yourself this; If this were to happen in Silicon Valley, would Silicon Valley as we know it continue to exist? Doubtful.
[+] [-] rickmb|14 years ago|reply
If a monopolist offers a product for free just because they have plenty of cash to do so, all rewards to compete in that market are removed. That kills competition stone dead, and that's why we have laws against it all over the world, including Silicon Valley.
Guarding the free market against monopolist abuse is standard operating procedure in all capitalist countries.
Bottin just happens to be the first to take this to court, and happened to have found a judge willing to listen. This could have happened anywhere, it just happened to be in France this time.
You may argue the court was wrong in this case, but the basic principle is part and parcel of every free market economy.
[+] [-] adamio|14 years ago|reply
Exactly, and this is the case with commodities. This product is maps. Maps are not a commodity product like Oil. There is a value factor.
[+] [-] VMG|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adamio|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CapitalistCartr|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zmmmmm|14 years ago|reply
So I'm not sure that argument works - Google is paying for the data like everyone else. The problem is they were giving the service (curated data) away.
[+] [-] watty|14 years ago|reply
Maybe it's a little unfair to the smaller players but illegal? I see it as a promotion to get the Enterprise version some extra users and increase publicity. It's competition. Google can afford to lower their price or give it away free to gain customers, this is bad? What if their promotion didn't give it away but went half price? 1/5th price? Who decides what level Google can cut their price as a temporary promotion?
[+] [-] geuis|14 years ago|reply
"This is the end of a two-year battle, a decision without precedent," said the lawyer for Bottin Cartographes, Jean-David Scemmama."
French candle makers http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] morturus|14 years ago|reply
the French court didn't just applied the fine, it was based on Google acts: when all other competitors dies google will start charging... with low price rates. is it fair?
I don't think so.
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] voidr|14 years ago|reply
2. Sue Google for providing this for free
3. Profit???
But seriously the french authorities are either corrupt or morons, or maybe both, Google has another business model, Google does not want to sell Maps as a service(not talking about the API) it wants to sell ads, big difference. Basically Google gets punished for having a better business model.
[+] [-] outside1234|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ukdm|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sahaj|14 years ago|reply
I'm not defending Google, just wondering if the case I describe above is the same as what Google was doing?
[+] [-] AeroQ|14 years ago|reply
http://next.liberation.fr/arts/06014780-le-google-maps-de-lo...
Amazing!
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]