Winning means end of the game. Hence the game doesn't allow anyone to win - because what the society needs is not the players to win, but for the game to go on and players to play.

I don't equal winning with having a monopoly or no competitors but rather just being profitable so you can live a OK life.

In that case, if you win, others can still win as well.

Unless you manage to carve out a monopoly position, capitalism is pretty much a race to the bottom.

Europeans could always use one of the other (European?) search engines if so they wished. http://searchengineland.com/alternatives-to-google-in-europe...

That's not really an argument. "Google could always not operate in the EU if so they wished"

Or Google could follow the rules of the countries in which they operate.

Please quote the rule that Google broke. In all 28 EU countries.

It's in the headline.

Antitrust: Commission fines Google €2.42 billion for abusing dominance as search engine by giving illegal advantage to own comparison shopping service

Antitrust rules. The EU decided they broke them. Whether you think they did or didn't is irrelevant.

And they do. I can't see how google makes that impossible for competitors, also as there are many other big player's around. And it is allways hard to get big from being small.

This is more about politics and EU bragging itself, for doing something "fair", for the people.