> discrimination (i.e. because of its unilateral policy of zero renumeration for all publishers)

Umm ianal but isn't saying all publishers don't get paid the opposite of discrimination?

If they said some American companies get paid but not french etc I would totally get it.

Inal either but the way the court phrases it in the press release is that google negociated a free use licence with everyone, regardless of their financial situations, using their dominant position on the market to "force" everyone.

A way of seeing this is that it might be fine for the big players for national and international news (Le monde, Le figaro ...) , but probably has a much bigger impact on small news outlet, because if they dont agree they are at a disadvatage obviously, so they cannot afford to say no, but at the same time they might already be in a difficult financial position, and that revenu might have helped.

The key part is that google had no real justification according to the court to treat everyone the same way, and that consitutes discrimination.

It seems a bit weird to me too but you could make a parallel to a school that has a set meal price for every student, regardless of parent income.This would obviously be discriminating towards the poorer students.

Now whether google is a public service the way school lunches are is up for debate but i think it basically comes down to equality vs equity

The justification for the remuneration agreement would seem to me to be that each individual news outlet is worth nothing, or very close to nothing, to Google. What provides value to Google is having quality search results about a particular topic in the native language. This is satisfied by some portion of news outlets allowing themselves to be indexed, foreign news sources, and independent sources (i.e. blogs and Twitter).

And my suspicion is that the value to Google is likely inversely proportional to the size of the news source, and I think the smaller publishers are hurting the most. I care to some degree that the NYT shows up in Google (but not much, really) whereas I couldn't care in the least about whether a local news paper in West Virginia is indexed.

> The imposition of unfair trading conditions

I'm not clear on the legal details but this confused me. I would have supposed under most sane legal systems that there's no "trading conditions" that are relevant here, because there is (or ought to be) no trade. In most jurisdictions, you can crawl a website and present small snippets of its content under fair use to the public, without having to have any kind of agreement with the publisher.

If that's the case in France, then I don't see how Google is "trading" with these publishers at all. Is this not the case in France?

Please don't post flamebait to HN.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html