Google Maps Charged With Unfair Competition In France For Daring To Be Free
from the how-dare-you! dept
Once again, we get to see the entitlement culture at work -- this time over in France. JohnForDummies points us to the news that a French company, Bottin Cartographes, is suing Google over its Google Maps offering, because Google lets companies use its web mapping services for free (how dare they!). Bottin Cartographes, on the other hand, offers a similar service that it charges for. Apparently, it seems to think that "competition" itself is "unfair competition." Why should Google have to charge just because this other company has a bad business model? We're back to companies declaring felony interference with a business model.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: comeptition, france, google maps, unfair competition
Companies: bottin cartographies, google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Why does Google offer free maps? It isn't just to be nice guys. They are doing it as a loss leader to get more people to Google search (similar to many other Google ideas).
The problem is that in some ways, it is unfair subsidized competition, running a 100% loss business in order to support another business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You must have a reading comprehension problem because I never said they did. You're missing the point.
You said, "They are doing it as a loss leader to get more people to Google search."
Why do advertisers offer free advertisements? It isn't just to be nice guys. They are doing it as a loss leader to get more people to use their products. By your logic commercials should not exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Basically, Google maps isn't a self sustaining business. You start getting into that nasty territory of market domination, where a company uses it's riches from other markets to not enter into a new market, but rather to kill it completely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By that logic we should just ban open source software offered by the GPL. If free open source software completely replaces video games that charge or if it completely replaces operating systems that charge I see nothing wrong with that. If corporations can't compete in a free market they should die, we shouldn't create laws to artificially make things more expensive.
"where a company uses it's riches from other markets to not enter into a new market, but rather to kill it completely."
Google did not kill the market. People use Google maps so the market exists. If a competitor wants to compete they are free to, but if they can't offer something that ADDS value they have no right to use the government to take away value that other corporations provide just to make things artificially expensive. If it's cheaper on society to allow a company to use economies of scope to provide a better product at a cheaper price and to increase aggregate output what's wrong with that? We shouldn't subsidize other corporations by restricting a more efficient way of providing a product. Google provides a more efficient way to provide a product and that's good for society, restricting the free market to disallow them to utilize economies of scope will yield an inferior product by other companies at a more expensive price. Why should society take a less efficient pathway to providing a good or service?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Google did not kill the market. People use Google maps so the market exists. If a competitor wants to compete they are free to, but if they can't offer something that ADDS value they have no right to use the government to take away value that other corporations provide just to make things artificially expensive. If it's cheaper on society to allow a company to use economies of scope to provide a better product at a cheaper price and to increase aggregate output what's wrong with that? We shouldn't subsidize other corporations by restricting a more efficient way of providing a product. Google provides a more efficient way to provide a product and that's good for society, restricting the free market to disallow them to utilize economies of scope will yield an inferior product by other companies at a more expensive price. Why should society take a less efficient pathway to providing a good or service?
Bingo, stated perfectly. It blows my mind how many people will actually support artificially raising prices or subsidizing jobs at a loss, thus increasing market inefficiency.
The entire point of having an economy is to reduce the inefficiency in consuming scarce resources! The more products that can be offered at lower prices, the less aggregate scarcity exists for everybody.
If we allow people to lose their jobs in an inefficient or unnecessary business model instead of propping it up -- that's good! We can refocus our energies in other areas that are less efficient, and people will get new jobs there that are actually needed.
If some business comes in and offers a service or resource sustainably for free -- that is perfect! Zero(or negligible) scarcity is the ideal for which society should strive to attain. If businesses and/or their employees are not actively reducing scarcity by providing lower prices or new services/goods/innovation that otherwise would not exist, then they are negating the very point of jobs and currency in the first place...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Advertisements aren't a self sustaining business so lets just do away with them as well. No more commercials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not taking a stand one way or another, just saying it's not so cut and dry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think such is highly unlikely. This is a free market, if someone else wants to offer a better map for free or even if they want to charge for a better mapping service they are free to do so. If the market values the new mapping service enough to pay for it then they are free to. If they don't they are free to go to the cheaper one (ie: google maps. It's not free because people pay for the Internet connection). Society, the free market, will choose what they value more, their money or the benefit they get from a mapping service that costs money. If we have the government regulate the free market then we are saying that the government is best suited to choose what individuals value more and I have to say such a notion is complete and utter nonsense. The government has no business choosing what I and the population values more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unfair?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: more like "loss loser"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: more like "loss loser"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you also have to remember that when you're as big as google, filing motions to dismiss for bullshit lawsuits like this is just a cost of doing business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
you could watch shows that has swears fighting volience all of that
now you have 400 channels of all the same shit
and 25 mins of real show to 35 mins of fucking advertising
to the fucking hell with them
i think and find it crazy that
companys pay to have there ads on tv to support the station
cable does the same thing and then also charged a shit load of money to send you the same ads
to force you to watch more of there shit ads to buy more of there shit products LOL
i dont see any real value in cable at all what does it offer
that over the air does not
let me tell you i get better HD over the air then i did from the cable company as i was stealing there cable which no longer do cus there had nothing worth watching
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When you can't compete, sue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When you can't compete, sue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When you can't compete, sue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When you can't compete, sue
A. Unified European continent was one of Hitler's stated goals, and not only to be achieved militarily. He actually didn't really want to go to war with Europe, he wanted to go to war with Russia. He actually envisioned a mostly non-hostile takeover of Europe.
B. Actual control resting with the big banks. Much like in Nazi Germany, the political leaders aren't REALLY the ones in control in the EU. It's the banks, mostly what is commonly referred to as the Big 3, which has actually grown by a few banks. The way the Bilderburg types are wielding power in the EU points to a style, if not the actual culpability, of the Illuminati/Majestic12 types.
C. Nationalism and the rule of fear. One of the tenants Nazi Germany was creating an us vs. them mentality in every aspect of life. In Germany is was the Aryan race vs. the International Jew. In America it has become the Freedom Lovin America vs. International Terrorism. Europe lacked some a unifying enemy for a long time, and to some degree still does. But in business, that enemy is America. It's interesting to note that the ownership on both sides are comprised of the same banks. The two sides keep fighting, and the only one that will surely win will be these mega-banks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When you can't compete, sue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2nd day, and already we're at New Rule #2
"a French company, Bottin Cartographes, is suing Google over its Google Maps offering, because Google lets companies use its web mapping services for free (how dare they!)"
Okay, this one applies to EVERYONE, and is a two-parter.
1. Thou shalt not sue someone for something that had NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH YOU. If party A gives something generally legal to party B, party C doesn't get to sue...well anyone, really, since they WEREN'T INVOLVED IN THE FUCKING TRANSACTION. If it was a BAD thing, party B would be suing, you idiots. What do you think is going to happen, you sue party A, pissing party B off, and then party B is going to BUY from YOU? Jesus....
2. Any party that uses the legal system in their respective country to stomp their feet and pout like a six year old is going to get treated like one. You want to sue just because somebody did something you don't like, even though the legal basis isn't there? Well, okay, but then all of your employees AND ANYONE invested, by law, must go to bed at 7pm (No you can't stay up to watch the Oreilly Factor you assholes), can't eat any ice cream until they finish their peas, and for God's sake, don't talk to strangers.
As Lord Helmet has written it, so it shall come to pass....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2nd day, and already we're at New Rule #2
Lots of you guys are forgetting that so-called justice in places like France is based on civil-law, not common-law.
VRP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Problem Solved
Unless Google charges the exact same amount or more, they will call it "Subsidized Competition".
Truth is, if they could force Google to charge the same price as they ask, that would be price-fixing. TOTALLY ILLEGAL.
You can't win.
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A: I explained why your logic was bad, if your logic can be refuted by a "knee jerk" reaction than who's fault is that.
B: I also explained the economics behind why your logic is bad just as well. It wasn't a knee jerk reaction, it was an analytical discussion over why your logic is wrong.
"While this particular example seems a little frivolous, is not the ability of a company to use its riches from one market to compete at extreme advantage in other markets a potential market failure?"
Oligopolies exist all throughout markets and they often provide services throughout many markets. It's called economies of scope, go look it up. Microsoft offers word processors and operating systems, for one thing, because offering both provides the benefit of economies of scope. So lets just eliminate Microsoft. In fact, lets eliminate grocery stores since they use their riches from one market (Product A that they sell) to compete at extreme advantage in other markets (product B that they sell). It's called economies of scope, if it provides a better product at a cheaper price, if it provides more economic efficiency, what's wrong with that. It'll be silly to have a different store for each and every single product that is sold (but by your logic that's what we'll do), the grocery store sells multiple products because of a thing called economies of scope. Corporations often make many different products because doing so provides economies of scope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hai EU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A consumer's perspective
If the French have a problem, all they have to do is block Maps from all the French. Problem solved. Who the hell are they to tell me I have to pay for something, now free, to support some foreign company?
This is stupid! Another frivolous anti-free market bag of crap, which can only hurt the end users, US the consumer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Loss of privacy?
This is a good and valuable service, it's free, it works, leave it alone!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"PlayStation Network, often abbreviated to PSN, is a free online multiplayer gaming and digital media delivery service provided by Sony Computer Entertainment for use with the PlayStation 3."
"Xbox Live is an online multiplayer gaming and digital media delivery service created and operated by Microsoft Corporation. It is currently the only online gaming service (on consoles) that charges users a fee to play multiplayer gaming."
Xbox Live charges money and is still very popular, because compared to the free PSN it's well worth the price.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about Yahoo and MapQuest?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uhh... what about Yahoo, MSFT, Mapquest?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And it rolls onward
On top of that, the government has now been given carte blanche to take money from anyone it pleases and meddle wherever it wants.
And what did you get for it, oh MS-haters (including, it must be noted, Google's legal department)? A ballot box. Great job, guys, that was totally worth it. Really, just boffo job. Fantastic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This surprises anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]