Not a lawyer. My gut feel is Google writes their TOS that are concrete enough to be enforceable at some basic legal level, but vague enough to be a catch-all e

Not a lawyer. My gut feel is Google writes their TOS that are concrete enough to be enforceable at some basic legal level, but vague enough to be a catch-all enforcement. It's crummy that Google is claiming that Routebuilder is violating their ToS, but not telling them how it's violating or why they have deemed Routebuilder a violate of that specific ToS clause. It definitely feels like large company bullying tactics, which are hard for small/medium and independent companies to fight, without investing (read: wasting) money on legal fees. This is less about "oh if you don't like the terms, build it yourself" but rather the spirit of which Google was founded. Facebook and Twitter have pulled this same nonsense as well: encourage all developers build their apps on top of their platforms, to help grow the active user base. Once they become critical mass/gate keepers, swing the doorshut for all except those who are willing to do everything that they are asked of. The kick in the balls is how Google built their organization on top of open-software, but now has adopted the same corporate policies that closed/proprietary software vendors like MSFT have used. "Do no evil."