I'm distinguishing between a "monopoly" as is used commonly (and loosely) like in this case to describe Google and a true monopoly, which by definition no one i

I'm distinguishing between a "monopoly" as is used commonly (and loosely) like in this case to describe Google and a true monopoly, which by definition no one is able to compete with equally, like the US federal government. I think that "monopolies" (Google, any entity that doesn't use the government backed by force to protect it from having to compete equally) are okay, but a monopoly is not, and is prone to corruption, thus our founding fathers' belief in limited government. This isn't my disagreeing with the judge, this is my disagreeing with their right to try Google in the first place, a power which _no_ government should have: the right to try and punish someone for a future intention of exercising one's property rights. It is France's violation of these human rights which I find reprehensible. Regarding "monopolies" having no restrictions placed on them, this is true in the extent that the government is concerned. The government should neither help nor restrain individual businesses, and should instead create an equal environment where property and contract rights are enforced, and companies are not found guilty of success by the greed of others with a government that sanctions such greed. I highlighted the definition of a monopoly, because everyone is throwing that word around without any regard for its meaning. Google does not have exclusive ownership of maps through any legal sanction; It does not have command of supply as a Google map is a combination of bits and knowledge of information that is freely available to _anyone_ that would take the time and had the incentive to assemble them; There is no concerted action as there's no 2nd party with which Google has been acting with. Finally, I never said a monopoly is beholden to _a_ customer, but instead to _its_ costomer_s_. A company in a free market cannot exist in perpetuity without providing some value for which someone will trade their money for. So long as both parties are free to trade value for value, no monopoly exists. I enjoyed your response by the way.