4 ms·

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 wher

by 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.
- endtime 15y ago
  >the basic principle is part and parcel of every free market economy. Is this a theoretical or empirical claim?
- eldude 15y ago
  A monopoly does not kill competition, it disuades it. Nobody competes with the monopoly because the incentives are not great enough to do so. The same incentives for success do not disappear because a monopoly emerges. The monopoly must still sell their item to a free market that's free to refuse their goods on moral or pragmatic grounds. A monopoly means solely that they are not challenged by a competitor and can therefore sell their product beholden only to demand, and not supply. Again, this is a _good_ thing. The demand of the consumers that products be offered at the price they want, as opposed to the company's, is again plain and simple _greed_. Let's not be coy about it. Consumers want more for less and they seek to use the government and the tyranny of the masses to force corporations, the private property of others, to give it to them. Again, this conduct is reprehensible and any government that encourages it will only be hurting itself and its citizens. Let me repeat that, a monopoly is not some magical power to force one's will upon the people. In a free market, a monopoly remains subject to the demand of the market and cannot and will not succeed by offering a product nobody wants. Success is not anti-competitive, far from it! Success is the greatest incentive for competition that has ever existed. You're forcing your desires onto a free market that is clearly making its own choice. You're proclaiming to know more about what's best for people than they do. Leave the free market alone, empower and grant the people their free will, educate, and if you want to change the world, do so by competing and earning it, not by undermining others' rights to satisfy your own ideology.
  - arg01 15y ago
    The governments are (local) monopolies that supply a product(customers) to businesses on the governemnts terms. So, using your logic businesses can choose on moral or pragmatic grounds not to buy from these monopolies (i.e. set up in another country). Please continue to argue how a single incumbent asserting its market dominance is a good thing while arguing a single incumbent asserting its market dominance is a bad thing.
VMG 15y ago
not to mention the services who depend on the availability of a free maps API

by eldude 15y ago

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.

endtime 15y ago
>the basic principle is part and parcel of every free market economy. Is this a theoretical or empirical claim?
eldude 15y ago
A monopoly does not kill competition, it disuades it. Nobody competes with the monopoly because the incentives are not great enough to do so. The same incentives for success do not disappear because a monopoly emerges. The monopoly must still sell their item to a free market that's free to refuse their goods on moral or pragmatic grounds. A monopoly means solely that they are not challenged by a competitor and can therefore sell their product beholden only to demand, and not supply. Again, this is a _good_ thing. The demand of the consumers that products be offered at the price they want, as opposed to the company's, is again plain and simple _greed_. Let's not be coy about it. Consumers want more for less and they seek to use the government and the tyranny of the masses to force corporations, the private property of others, to give it to them. Again, this conduct is reprehensible and any government that encourages it will only be hurting itself and its citizens. Let me repeat that, a monopoly is not some magical power to force one's will upon the people. In a free market, a monopoly remains subject to the demand of the market and cannot and will not succeed by offering a product nobody wants. Success is not anti-competitive, far from it! Success is the greatest incentive for competition that has ever existed. You're forcing your desires onto a free market that is clearly making its own choice. You're proclaiming to know more about what's best for people than they do. Leave the free market alone, empower and grant the people their free will, educate, and if you want to change the world, do so by competing and earning it, not by undermining others' rights to satisfy your own ideology.
- arg01 15y ago
  The governments are (local) monopolies that supply a product(customers) to businesses on the governemnts terms. So, using your logic businesses can choose on moral or pragmatic grounds not to buy from these monopolies (i.e. set up in another country). Please continue to argue how a single incumbent asserting its market dominance is a good thing while arguing a single incumbent asserting its market dominance is a bad thing.

VMG 15y ago

not to mention the services who depend on the availability of a free maps API