10 ms·

France convicts Google Maps for unfair competition

198 points by seppo0010 15y ago

PaulHoule 15y ago
One hand gives, the other hand takes. One minute we hear people complaining that Google Maps cost too much money (if you have heavy volume) and next we hear that Google Maps cost too little money. I don't know if Open Street Maps will be that successful in France though... If you plot the density of documentation in en.wikipedia on a map, you see a hole where France is... Germans, Dutch and English like to participate in free culture and open source -- I don't know if it's a language problem or if the French are too smart for that and will only work on something if you promise them a pension first.
- DarenThomas 15y ago
  I just created an account to reply to this... because I think your method (plotting density of en.wikipedia on a map) might be flawed. Not being French (or living in France) myself, I happen to be aware of the fact that they tend to do a lot of stuff in, well, French. Just saying - maybe plot fr.wikipedia on a map and compare to ge.wikipedia and es.wikipedia and then we will have some interesting data... You wouldn't switch to the new world domination lingo as easily, if you already spoke the old world domination lingo, right?
  - kolinko 15y ago
    +1. English Wiki - 3M articles German Wiki - 1.3M articles French Wiki - 1.2M articles The French wiki is the 3rd largest, beating Spanish & Japanese (while there are far many more Spaniards & Japanese than French)
- al_ 15y ago
  France is one of the most active open source country : http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/ossi-index-ranks.pdf http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/ossi-index-ranks.pdf
- dasil003 15y ago
  I don't think the people saying Google Maps is too expensive, and the people saying it's too cheap having anything at all to do with each other.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- nodata 15y ago
  Europe has loads of nice things. You should visit sometime. This ruling, presumably, is about a big company subsidising its unprofitable mapping business with another part of its business until the small fish die.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
    - _delirium 15y ago
      There's no blanket prohibition on offering things for free that cost money to develop. There are free French search engines and newspapers with free websites, for example, as well as French companies that develop open-source software. A court would have to find that the free service is being cross-subsidized and offered at a loss for the purpose of driving competitors out of business, to later profit from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing). That's also illegal in the U.S., but U.S. courts tend to require a higher bar to demonstrate it.
      - dudeguy999 15y ago
        So there is no rule of law in France. You just open your business and hope for the best?
  - ghc 15y ago
    > Europe has loads of nice things. You should visit sometime. HN is not a place for flame wars about countries (or continents). He had a valid point, as he was referencing the hostile legal climate for doing (some kinds of) business in several European countries (and in some cases the EU).
    - DeanCollinsLCC 15y ago
alexis-d 15y ago
I'm French and I really think that's a shame. What's next? Microsoft to sue Google because Docs are free?
- yogsototh 15y ago
  I am with you, it's a shame. The next time they'll sue Linux or the free press.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- alexis-d 15y ago
  Can someone explain me the downvotes? I mean the Microsoft/Google thing was a half serious, half joke question.
  - brudgers 15y ago
    <meta> Half serious comments and snark often get downvoted - particularly when they add nothing to the discussion, and almost inevitably when they are appear intended to take the discussion off track by baiting partisan disagreements or fanboyism. Downvotes should be considered editorial feedback - either you didn't make your point clearly, or your comment is considered likely to derail the discussion. Use the "edit" and "delete" links, respectively if you are concerned about the karma score of a particular comment. <additional meta> It is bad form on HN to complain about downvotes.
    - alexis-d 15y ago
      Ok thanks for the explanations. "<additional meta> It is bad form on HN to complain about downvotes." I didn't complain I just wanted explanations.
    - ramblerman 15y ago
      </additional meta> </meta>
dlikhten 15y ago
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. Kudos to the french for this.
- Tichy 15y ago
  OK so lets shut down Wikipedia next.
  - freehunter 15y ago
    As soon as they start charging for access. See, this is the problem with deceptive headlines, they make people argue points that don't exist.
    - Tichy 15y ago
      So what if I have a company that sells information and Wikipedia ruins my business by offering information for free? Edit: even if Wikipedia is non-profit, what if their secret main sponsor is some news outlet, for example?
      - freehunter 15y ago
        That doesn't matter. There is no law nor any court ruling even in France against providing free services. Here is the entire key to the issue: >Bottin Cartographes argued that Google was only planning to give away the service for free until all the competitors had been driven out of business and then they would start charging. It's not about free services, it's about willfully plotting to gain marketshare via free services with specific intent on charging for the service once the competitors have been driven out. While I believe the French ruling is faulty (where is the proof?), this isn't an issue of free vs paid. The analogy only works if Wikipedia has specific intent to begin charging for access once your business is gone.
ukdm 15y ago
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?
aprescott 15y ago
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." Slightly changes the story. [1]: http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2012/02/01/google-maps-google-condamne-en-france-pour-abus-de-position-dominante_1637434_651865.html http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2012/02/01/google... [2]: http://www.google.com/enterprise/earthmaps/maps-faq.html http://www.google.com/enterprise/earthmaps/maps-faq.html
- demallien 15y ago
  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."
  - aprescott 15y ago
    Thanks. I relied on Google Translate to do almost all of the translation!
- toyg 15y ago
  From what I understand, when the lawsuit started, the service was free.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- dangrossman 15y ago
  Do you think that in a market for a service which is very expensive to provide, one participant offering that service for free will encourage competition, or will it drive the others out of business? If you agree that it will drive them out of business, then you agree that offering the service for free is anticompetitive. The situation here is more complicated than that, and not all anticompetitive action is not illegal, but I don't think you actually believe that offering a free service can't be anticompetitive.
  - Karunamon 15y ago
    (deleted my OP due to people using the down arrow for "disagree") >Do you think that in a market for a service which is very expensive to provide, one participant offering that service for free will encourage competition, or will it drive the others out of business? I'm sorry but I'm finding it very hard to justify the government stepping in and saying "Nuh-uh, you're not charging enough". If this was a case of predatory pricing, whereby they're trying to just drive everyone else out before jacking the price up, that's one thing, but having a free service? My mind is boggling. They are being forced to set a price higher than they want (or need) at gunpoint. So what is the price they should set? Who decides that, and what legal precedent is there for it?
    - _delirium 15y ago
      This isn't a free service, though; this is a temporarily-free version of their Enterprise API, which they plan to charge (a lot) for later. I.e. they precisely are trying to drive everyone out of business before jacking the price up.
      - Karunamon 15y ago
        That's only the allegation by the cartographer company, it's not proven, and it really reeks of thought crime. (How can you be sued for something you "plan" to do with no proof of such a plan?) And as the article says, that is NOT like Google at all. And another thing, is that the service who is doing the whining here is quite objectively crap, compared to google maps.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
watty 15y ago
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?
wolfhumble 15y ago
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." See: http://code.google.com/apis/maps/terms.html#section_9_1_1 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 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 http://www.google.com/enterprise/earthmaps/maps-faq.html
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
morturus 15y ago
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? I don't think so.
tomelders 15y ago
Google maps could easily be better. But screw it, why innovate when you can litigate!
babarock 15y ago
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?
- mattmanser 15y ago
  It would be able to fly. 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.
  - WayneDB 15y ago
    The general consensus is not that IE was a bad thing in the long run. Perhaps nobody likes IE today, but that does not mean it's a bad thing at all. Certainly it was the impetus for Firefox being born and they introduced XmlHttpRequest. Those are important (and GOOD) things. Also, Netscape certainly did not open source their product until they were thoroughly beaten in the market, ~1998. Before that, they were still trying to make money by selling the software. So, regardless of what you or anyone else says about why Netscape did it, we all know why they did it.
    - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
      Netscape open sourced their browser so the browser would survive, not so they would. They were continuing to make money off their server products, but they couldn't justify the large investment in a browser anymore.
      - WayneDB 15y ago
        Correct. That's exactly what I said and that's what the original commenter said too I thought.
mjwalshe 15y ago
No google has been found guilty of not being a French company - or not employing the right grads from ENA whose "Papa" went to ENA with the right people whose "Papa" also went to ENA Same way it was the was non french companies that got raided over the 35 hours working time laws
- mjwalshe 15y ago
  Voted down eh - obviously some one doesn know how the real world works. The 35 hours story is direct from a senior player.
antonyh 15y ago
Google could have side-stepped this at any point, simply by charging 1€ per year.
AeroQ 15y ago
France had already their Google Maps in 18th century: (for military planning and instruction) http://next.liberation.fr/arts/06014780-le-google-maps-de-louis-xiv http://next.liberation.fr/arts/06014780-le-google-maps-de-lo... Amazing!
adamio 15y ago
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?
kenrik 15y ago
But if Google actually "killed" all the competition and started charging what would prevent someone else from coming in and undercutting Google? In technology if there is an opening there is always someone waiting to fill it (I know Apple is interested in the space). Also there will always be a need for low price and high price options (iPad / Kindle Fire) If what you're offering is worth the price that you charge then you should not have an issue finding customers. P.S. I would be more surprised if this were a US Court.
eldude 15y ago
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.
- adamio 15y ago
  "If the only differentiating factor between the "monopoly" and a local business is price, the "monopoly" is going to win every time" 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.
- rickmb 15y ago
  > Competition dies when rewards are removed 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.
te_platt 15y ago
Thomas Sowell gives a nice introduction on predatory pricing here: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/0503/6309089a.html http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/0503/6309089a.html 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.
- olefoo 15y ago
  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.
  - jlarocco 15y ago
    Actually all 3 of those are true. I don't know exactly what this company's product is, but if they offer an API for creating maps on a website it would be a rival product. Next, the barrier to entry for online mapping is huge. The raw data to generate and create maps is not easy to collect. Especially for satellite images and topo data. And then there's the infrastructure required to actually process and serve the data. Switching mapping APIs is not always trivial. Along with the different interfaces, most of them have slightly different features. Once a site is using a specific mapping API it's anywhere from a hassle to a major PITA to switch to something else.
    - cjy 15y ago
      I think you misunderstand the economic meaning of "rival good": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics)
      - onemoreact 15y ago
sahaj 15y ago
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?
CapitalistCartr 15y ago
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.
- zmmmmm 15y ago
  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.
nextparadigms 15y ago
So what does this mean for openstreetmap.org
outside1234 15y ago
You all are confusing logic with politics. This happened because Google is not a French company. It happens all the time in France.
geuis 15y ago
This reminds me of one thing and makes me scoff at this "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 http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html
koenigdavidmj 15y ago
Easy solution for Google: Google blocks France (or French government users) until they complain.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
voidr 15y ago
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.

198 points by seppo0010 15y ago

One hand gives, the other hand takes. One minute we hear people complaining that Google Maps cost too much money (if you have heavy volume) and next we hear that Google Maps cost too little money. I don't know if Open Street Maps will be that successful in France though... If you plot the density of documentation in en.wikipedia on a map, you see a hole where France is... Germans, Dutch and English like to participate in free culture and open source -- I don't know if it's a language problem or if the French are too smart for that and will only work on something if you promise them a pension first.

DarenThomas 15y ago
I just created an account to reply to this... because I think your method (plotting density of en.wikipedia on a map) might be flawed. Not being French (or living in France) myself, I happen to be aware of the fact that they tend to do a lot of stuff in, well, French. Just saying - maybe plot fr.wikipedia on a map and compare to ge.wikipedia and es.wikipedia and then we will have some interesting data... You wouldn't switch to the new world domination lingo as easily, if you already spoke the old world domination lingo, right?
- kolinko 15y ago
  +1. English Wiki - 3M articles German Wiki - 1.3M articles French Wiki - 1.2M articles The French wiki is the 3rd largest, beating Spanish & Japanese (while there are far many more Spaniards & Japanese than French)
al_ 15y ago
France is one of the most active open source country : http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/ossi-index-ranks.pdf http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/ossi-index-ranks.pdf
dasil003 15y ago
I don't think the people saying Google Maps is too expensive, and the people saying it's too cheap having anything at all to do with each other.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

nodata 15y ago
Europe has loads of nice things. You should visit sometime. This ruling, presumably, is about a big company subsidising its unprofitable mapping business with another part of its business until the small fish die.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
  - _delirium 15y ago
    There's no blanket prohibition on offering things for free that cost money to develop. There are free French search engines and newspapers with free websites, for example, as well as French companies that develop open-source software. A court would have to find that the free service is being cross-subsidized and offered at a loss for the purpose of driving competitors out of business, to later profit from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing). That's also illegal in the U.S., but U.S. courts tend to require a higher bar to demonstrate it.
    - dudeguy999 15y ago
      So there is no rule of law in France. You just open your business and hope for the best?
- ghc 15y ago
  > Europe has loads of nice things. You should visit sometime. HN is not a place for flame wars about countries (or continents). He had a valid point, as he was referencing the hostile legal climate for doing (some kinds of) business in several European countries (and in some cases the EU).
  - DeanCollinsLCC 15y ago

alexis-d 15y ago

I'm French and I really think that's a shame. What's next? Microsoft to sue Google because Docs are free?

yogsototh 15y ago
I am with you, it's a shame. The next time they'll sue Linux or the free press.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
alexis-d 15y ago
Can someone explain me the downvotes? I mean the Microsoft/Google thing was a half serious, half joke question.
- brudgers 15y ago
  <meta> Half serious comments and snark often get downvoted - particularly when they add nothing to the discussion, and almost inevitably when they are appear intended to take the discussion off track by baiting partisan disagreements or fanboyism. Downvotes should be considered editorial feedback - either you didn't make your point clearly, or your comment is considered likely to derail the discussion. Use the "edit" and "delete" links, respectively if you are concerned about the karma score of a particular comment. <additional meta> It is bad form on HN to complain about downvotes.
  - alexis-d 15y ago
    Ok thanks for the explanations. "<additional meta> It is bad form on HN to complain about downvotes." I didn't complain I just wanted explanations.
  - ramblerman 15y ago
    </additional meta> </meta>

dlikhten 15y ago

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. Kudos to the french for this.

Tichy 15y ago
OK so lets shut down Wikipedia next.
- freehunter 15y ago
  As soon as they start charging for access. See, this is the problem with deceptive headlines, they make people argue points that don't exist.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    So what if I have a company that sells information and Wikipedia ruins my business by offering information for free? Edit: even if Wikipedia is non-profit, what if their secret main sponsor is some news outlet, for example?
    - freehunter 15y ago
      That doesn't matter. There is no law nor any court ruling even in France against providing free services. Here is the entire key to the issue: >Bottin Cartographes argued that Google was only planning to give away the service for free until all the competitors had been driven out of business and then they would start charging. It's not about free services, it's about willfully plotting to gain marketshare via free services with specific intent on charging for the service once the competitors have been driven out. While I believe the French ruling is faulty (where is the proof?), this isn't an issue of free vs paid. The analogy only works if Wikipedia has specific intent to begin charging for access once your business is gone.

ukdm 15y ago

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?

aprescott 15y ago

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." Slightly changes the story. [1]: http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2012/02/01/google-maps-google-condamne-en-france-pour-abus-de-position-dominante_1637434_651865.html http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2012/02/01/google... [2]: http://www.google.com/enterprise/earthmaps/maps-faq.html http://www.google.com/enterprise/earthmaps/maps-faq.html

demallien 15y ago
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."
- aprescott 15y ago
  Thanks. I relied on Google Translate to do almost all of the translation!
toyg 15y ago
From what I understand, when the lawsuit started, the service was free.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

dangrossman 15y ago
Do you think that in a market for a service which is very expensive to provide, one participant offering that service for free will encourage competition, or will it drive the others out of business? If you agree that it will drive them out of business, then you agree that offering the service for free is anticompetitive. The situation here is more complicated than that, and not all anticompetitive action is not illegal, but I don't think you actually believe that offering a free service can't be anticompetitive.
- Karunamon 15y ago
  (deleted my OP due to people using the down arrow for "disagree") >Do you think that in a market for a service which is very expensive to provide, one participant offering that service for free will encourage competition, or will it drive the others out of business? I'm sorry but I'm finding it very hard to justify the government stepping in and saying "Nuh-uh, you're not charging enough". If this was a case of predatory pricing, whereby they're trying to just drive everyone else out before jacking the price up, that's one thing, but having a free service? My mind is boggling. They are being forced to set a price higher than they want (or need) at gunpoint. So what is the price they should set? Who decides that, and what legal precedent is there for it?
  - _delirium 15y ago
    This isn't a free service, though; this is a temporarily-free version of their Enterprise API, which they plan to charge (a lot) for later. I.e. they precisely are trying to drive everyone out of business before jacking the price up.
    - Karunamon 15y ago
      That's only the allegation by the cartographer company, it's not proven, and it really reeks of thought crime. (How can you be sued for something you "plan" to do with no proof of such a plan?) And as the article says, that is NOT like Google at all. And another thing, is that the service who is doing the whining here is quite objectively crap, compared to google maps.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

watty 15y ago

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?

wolfhumble 15y ago

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." See: http://code.google.com/apis/maps/terms.html#section_9_1_1 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 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 http://www.google.com/enterprise/earthmaps/maps-faq.html

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

morturus 15y ago

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? I don't think so.

tomelders 15y ago

Google maps could easily be better. But screw it, why innovate when you can litigate!

babarock 15y ago

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?

mattmanser 15y ago
It would be able to fly. 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.
- WayneDB 15y ago
  The general consensus is not that IE was a bad thing in the long run. Perhaps nobody likes IE today, but that does not mean it's a bad thing at all. Certainly it was the impetus for Firefox being born and they introduced XmlHttpRequest. Those are important (and GOOD) things. Also, Netscape certainly did not open source their product until they were thoroughly beaten in the market, ~1998. Before that, they were still trying to make money by selling the software. So, regardless of what you or anyone else says about why Netscape did it, we all know why they did it.
  - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
    Netscape open sourced their browser so the browser would survive, not so they would. They were continuing to make money off their server products, but they couldn't justify the large investment in a browser anymore.
    - WayneDB 15y ago
      Correct. That's exactly what I said and that's what the original commenter said too I thought.

mjwalshe 15y ago

No google has been found guilty of not being a French company - or not employing the right grads from ENA whose "Papa" went to ENA with the right people whose "Papa" also went to ENA Same way it was the was non french companies that got raided over the 35 hours working time laws

mjwalshe 15y ago
Voted down eh - obviously some one doesn know how the real world works. The 35 hours story is direct from a senior player.

antonyh 15y ago

Google could have side-stepped this at any point, simply by charging 1€ per year.

AeroQ 15y ago

France had already their Google Maps in 18th century: (for military planning and instruction) http://next.liberation.fr/arts/06014780-le-google-maps-de-louis-xiv http://next.liberation.fr/arts/06014780-le-google-maps-de-lo... Amazing!

adamio 15y ago

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?

kenrik 15y ago

But if Google actually "killed" all the competition and started charging what would prevent someone else from coming in and undercutting Google? In technology if there is an opening there is always someone waiting to fill it (I know Apple is interested in the space). Also there will always be a need for low price and high price options (iPad / Kindle Fire) If what you're offering is worth the price that you charge then you should not have an issue finding customers. P.S. I would be more surprised if this were a US Court.

eldude 15y ago

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.

adamio 15y ago
"If the only differentiating factor between the "monopoly" and a local business is price, the "monopoly" is going to win every time" 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.
rickmb 15y ago
> Competition dies when rewards are removed 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.

te_platt 15y ago

Thomas Sowell gives a nice introduction on predatory pricing here: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/0503/6309089a.html http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/0503/6309089a.html 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.

olefoo 15y ago
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.
- jlarocco 15y ago
  Actually all 3 of those are true. I don't know exactly what this company's product is, but if they offer an API for creating maps on a website it would be a rival product. Next, the barrier to entry for online mapping is huge. The raw data to generate and create maps is not easy to collect. Especially for satellite images and topo data. And then there's the infrastructure required to actually process and serve the data. Switching mapping APIs is not always trivial. Along with the different interfaces, most of them have slightly different features. Once a site is using a specific mapping API it's anywhere from a hassle to a major PITA to switch to something else.
  - cjy 15y ago
    I think you misunderstand the economic meaning of "rival good": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics)
    - onemoreact 15y ago

sahaj 15y ago

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?

CapitalistCartr 15y ago

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.

zmmmmm 15y ago
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.

nextparadigms 15y ago

So what does this mean for openstreetmap.org

outside1234 15y ago

You all are confusing logic with politics. This happened because Google is not a French company. It happens all the time in France.

geuis 15y ago

This reminds me of one thing and makes me scoff at this "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 http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html

koenigdavidmj 15y ago

Easy solution for Google: Google blocks France (or French government users) until they complain.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

voidr 15y ago

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.