When first found guilty, Google was condemned to cut newspaper content from Google News, or pay a €1 million daily fine.

On the other hand, search words, such as newspaper’s names, don’t point to the newspapers’ websites anymore. This could adversely affect newspapers’ web traffic.

Google will have to pay €3 million for having violated copyright agreements until now (as opposed to the €130 million Copiepress asked for).

Although it may seem like a small step, this is a first leap for newspapers that are trying to obtain better copyright control over their content. In the end, it benefits neither newspapers nor Google, and even less consumers, if both entities are at war.

Perhaps the point made by this trial was that Google and newspapers must develop partnerships and agreements prior to unilateral decision-making.

Lastly, it would be a mistake to consider this step as a major victory for newspapers, which is what many have leniently dubbed the court decision as. In fact, the court decision validated Google's unauthorized use of copyrighted content, provided that Google News withdraws content at the demand of content providers. Unless most content providers almost unanimously attack Google (which they won't all do because Google is a powerful traffic tool for them), will it mean Google will progressively continue to aggregate copyrighted content that content providers won't bother suing for anymore?  

More on case's background in this analysis.

Source: Libération through Ifra (link in French)