How is Google's promotion of their own services in the search engine different than Microsoft including IE in Windows? Microsoft didn't prevent you from installing other browsers - they got into trouble simply for including a free browser.
They didn't get in trouble for merely including a free browser.
They had an illegally acquired monopoly on the OS. Therefore they were not free to use this monopoly to reach into other areas.
Essentially, it's their illegal actions - bundling, forcing PC builders to pay for Windows whether it was bought or not, breaking competing apps, etc., that got them convicted.
Once they are a convicted monopolist, then one of the remedies is to ensure that they don't use this monopoly as leverage to get into other areas.
Now Google is in the first stage - the FTC can investigate whether they have a monopoly/market power, and if they do, are they using it in an anti-competitive way.
The FTC will have trouble in this case, esp on the search side, since users are not paying anything, nor are they compelled to use Google.
On the Advertising side, the FTC may have a stronger case to make, esp if they narrow it down to keyword advertising as a distinct market. But if you take advertising as a whole, Google is still a small part of the market, and the FTC won't have much to go on.
>They had an illegally acquired monopoly on the OS. Therefore they were not free to use this monopoly to reach into other areas.
Are you saying Google's monopoly on the search engine is any different? I mean, technically it's not a monopoly, but Microsoft didn't technically have a monopoly either - there were a half-dozen other operating systems people were using. Apple, Beos, Next, etc.
And how did Microsoft "illegally acquire" a monopoly and Google didn't? Did Google just fall into theirs?
I am not a lawyer, but I feel comfortable making a moral judgement that there are ethical and unethical business practices, and a world of difference between a company which dominates by providing the best product and a company which dominates by destroying its competition. Heck, I'd even claim there is a third type of monopoly, an economy of scale monopoly, where a company dominates because its size allows it to profitably sell cheaper than any smaller competitor. It's winning because its big, not because it's good, even if it isn't sending lawyers after its competitors or selling at a loss to run competition out of business.
I'll also agree that no matter the basis of the monopoly every company must be watched carefully to ensure it doesn't start abusing its power, but I still think it is reasonable to consider how a company got to be a monopoly.
I don't think Microsoft would lose the antitrust case in today's times FWIW.
But back when the case was being determined, the internet was incredibly slow and downloading large files like web browsers was pretty painful (both in time and the avg computer user's know how). So for a consumer to get a competing product to IE (which was free and bundled with Windows) you had to either know how and where to download a competitor or go buy a competing product at a store. These are leaps and bounds over the hurdles of Google competitors today.
