
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I wouldn't be quite so upset if I actually could see some harm from Google being #1. Google spends an enormous amount of money creating maps. Why should they not get to dominate the market. No one is stopping anyone else from spending millions to make better maps. I also see search results as an opinion. No matter how Google gets its results, they are Google's opinion of the top results. I may rank things differently. As such, opinion is a form of speech and to be protected at all costs.
Edited 2012-10-22 14:28 UTC
But that's exactly the point. Competition law isn't supposed to prevent companies dominating the market. It's to prevent them from exploiting this position and creating unfair barriers to others entering markets. If Google takes advantage of their Web search position to promote their mapping products (say), then this might be an example. If their mapping product is popular based on its own merits, then there's nothing wrong with that.
Also, to be clear, the law isn't just intended to protect you now: it's to protect you in the future. Once Google has driven/bought all of the other innovative companies (by which I don't necessarily mean Apple, Nokia or Tom Tom) out of the market, they can stop investing the millions they've been doing up until now.
TechGeek,
"I wouldn't be quite so upset if I actually could see some harm from Google being #1. Google spends an enormous amount of money creating maps."
Well, there's no denying google's spent money. But they did purchase some of their competitors outright. Those that I'm aware of: Endoxon, Keyhole, Where2
Member since:
2005-06-29
Yeah, that part wasn't particularly convincing. I cared about the FRAND stuff, though - I'm glad authorities are keeping close tabs on a company as large and possibly dangerous as Google.