In the world of big government, providing something of use to consumers is to be frowned upon:

Google has been ordered to pay a fine and damages to a French mapping company after a court ruled that the search giant was guilty of unfair competition and “undercutting competitors” by making its Google Maps program free.

According to Agence France Presse (AFP), Bottin Cartographes, a French mapping company that provides essentially the same service as Google Maps for a fee – brought a suit claiming that Google was “abusing” its dominant position by making its service free.

Google’s strategy is, apparently, to undercut competitors by “temporarily swallowing the full cost until it gains control of the market,” AFP reported.

A Paris-based commercial court agreed with Bottin Cartographes and ordered Google to pay 500,000 euro (£415,000) damages to Bottin Cartographes, as well as a fine of 15,000 euro (£12,500).

“We proved the illegality of Google’s strategy to remove its competitors,” said Jean-David Scemmama, Bottin Cartographes’ lawyer. “The court recognised the unfair and abusive character of the methods used and allocated Bottin Cartographes all it claimed.”

This sort of thing is hardly unique to France. The US as very similar, and similarly stupid, laws on the books. But this case really puts the lie to advocates of protectionist policies who claim they are for the consumer. They are not. They are for shafting the consumer.

Look at the language they use and how deceptive is. They mask their protectionist, anti-consumer agenda under the rhetoric of competition. But this has nothing to do with competition. If you assume their logic to be true (which is unwarranted, as there as been zero indication that Google ever intends to charge for Google Maps), there will still always be competitive pressure. So long as another firm can enter the market at any time to offer a competing service, Google will have to offer market competitive prices. The only way to perpetually keep out competition is either to use the force of government, or to perpetually price below market – in other words, by keeping it free. How in the world is the latter possibly a bad thing for consumers, the economy or society?