Microsoft exec confirms Redmond's involvement in antitrust inquiries about Google and search

Summary: Unsurprisingly, Microsoft and Google have taken their growing tit-for-tat rivalry to the courts. Yet again. In the latest round, Microsoft execs are confirming they've been talking to antitrust regulators in recent months about Google's dominant position in search and advertising.

Unsurprisingly, Microsoft and Google have taken their growing tit-for-tat rivalry to the courts. Yet again.

In the latest round, Microsoft execs are confirming they've been talking to antitrust regulators in recent months about Google's dominant position in search and advertising and don't dispute claims that Microsoft also may have helped encourage other search companies to come forward and register complaints with the European Union (EU).

Google execs pointed fingers at Microsoft earlier last week when three companies (two of which have explicit Microsoft ties) said they had been talking to EU officials about alleged Google behaviors that disadvantage the search leader's competitors. In a blog post on February 26, Microsoft Vice President and Deputy General Counsel David Heiner basically confirmed Microsoft's not-so-behind-the-scenes involvement, reminding readers that Google and its execs have used the antitrust courts the same way. From that post:

"Complaints in competition law cases usually come from competitors. (Believe me, I know: I’ve been chief competition counsel at Microsoft since 1994, so I’ve seen plenty of competitor complaints. Novell, when current Google CEO Eric Schmidt was at the helm, was never hesitant about complaining to regulators about Microsoft.Google hasn’t been shy about raising antitrust concerns about Microsoft in the last few years, either.) This is the way that competition law agencies function: They look to competitors in the first instance to understand how particular markets operate, the practices of dominant firms and the competitive significance of those practices."

Microsoft officials have spoken with EU, U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission officials about Google's competitive practices during those bodies' examination of the Microsoft-Yahoo search partnership -- which got the regulatory nod from the European Commission and the DOJ earlier this month, Heiner confirmed in his post.

As Microsoft officials know well, it's not illegal to have a monopoly on a market; it's illegal to abuse that monopoly power. Heiner noted that distinction in the conclusion to his post:

"Microsoft would obviously be among the first to say that leading firms should not be punished for their success. Nor should firms be punished just because a particular business practice may harm a rival—competition on the merits can do that, too. That is a position that Microsoft has long espoused, and we’re sticking to it. Our concerns relate only to Google practices that tend to lock in business partners and content (like Google Books) and exclude competitors, thereby undermining competition more broadly."

If the current investigation over Google's supposed practices turns into an complaint/lawsuit, expect a long, protracted and expensive battle. And expect more Google retaliation against Microsoft on another front as payback ....

Update: Worth a read: A good backgrounder on Microsoft vs. Google in the February 28 issue of the Wall Street Journal. A couple of folks who were prominent a decade ago (Rick Rule and Gary Reback) are back as part of the latest antitrust slug fests.

Topics: Google, Enterprise Software, Microsoft, Security

About

Mary Jo has covered the tech industry for more than 25 years for a variety of publications and Web sites, and is a frequent guest on radio, TV and podcasts, speaking about all things Microsoft-related. She is the author of Microsoft 2.0: How Microsoft plans to stay relevant in the post-Gates era (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

70 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • I do not see anything coming of this, but, in fairness, the EC must

    investigate. This is critical for Google as they
    need to show to users that trust them they are
    NOT playing with search results.
    DonnieBoy
    • There are still users who trust them?

      even after the long list of issues, culminating with the [b]HUGE[/b] breach of privacy with Buzz?
      John Zern
      • Privacy and search results are different issues

        Regardless, there is no evidence that Google has sold or traded anyone's data so the privacy issue outside the risk of data accessibility, is moot.

        As for the search results, there is no evidence that Google has skewed them for profit.

        Some people make judgments based on facts, and others use anecdotes to confirm their delusions.
        T1Oracle
    • Why did you use CAPS on the word NOT?

      You know that Google is not playing with search results? Where do you get all of your information DB? You never fail to sound like you are part of every inner circle at every company and organization in the world.

      Besides, Google has already played with search results in China, which they obviously don't deny. That is what is called precedent DB.
      It means for the right $$$, they are willing to do anything.
      And don't give me that MSFT and YHOO do it too, song and dance.
      xuniL_z
  • Being right has little significance

    when wrong on so many other fronts.

    hypocrisy reigns supreme as a mockery of ethics.
    Ole Man
    • Sorry, the law doesn't agree with you.

      But then, even you knew that much.
      No_Ax_to_Grind
      • Exactly! All one need do is read an excerpt

        from the book "No One Would Listen" by Harry Markopolos.

        "it was well known that Madoff operated his legitimate broker-dealer business on the 18th and 19th floors of the Lipstick Building on New York?s East Side. But what was not generally known was that his money management company, the fraud, was located on the 17th floor of that building. Months after Madoff?s collapse, the FBI would reveal to my team that based on our 2005 submission providing evidence that Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme, the SEC finally launched an investigation ? but that its crack investigative team during the two-year-long investigation ?never even figured out there was a 17th floor.? I had provided all the evidence they needed to close down Madoff ? and they couldn?t find an entire floor. Instead they issued three technical deficiency notices of minor violations to Madoff?s broker-dealer arm. Now, that really is setting a pretty low bar for other government agencies to beat. But sadly, all of this nation?s financial regulators ? the Federal Reserve Bank, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision ? are at best incompetent and at worst captive to the companies they are supposed to regulate."

        And that, my friends, is a perfect example of "the law" as we know it today.
        Ole Man
    • Thanks again for prefacing your own post's content.

      We know you are wrong on so many other fronts, that is why you resort to the "inquirer" for your "evidence" much of the time.

      Wow, and you have the nerve to mention ethics and hypocrisy. Wow, just wow.

      If I had a nickel for every hypocritical thing you've said, then later had to sing a different song cause you were wrong on top of being hypocritical, I'd be able to hire Bill Gates to drive my car.
      xuniL_z
      • So you think me being wrong makes you right?

        If I were wrong ten billion times it wouldn't make you right once.

        And the inquirer is now eligible for the Pulitzer prize. Your criricism of them puts you as far behind the curve as your Microsoft fanaticism does.

        http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9500E0D61031F93AA25751C0A9669D8B63&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
        Enquirer Is Eligible For Pulitzer
        Ole Man
  • RE: Microsoft exec confirms Redmond's involvement in antitrust inquiries about Google and search

    I still enjoy using Google Services because they are still great. I would like to see Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple, etc truly complete and make something that works and not just another licensed product. Microsoft Windows has failed and they are crying like a baby.
    Periphix
    • Thats why Bing is gaining market share?

      Try again.
      No_Ax_to_Grind
      • Reason?

        You're implying that Bing is doing something
        better than Google and that is why they are
        gaining market share. Can you answer your own
        question: Is that why?
        Adam S
        • Bing is better, its that simple.

          Now go ahead and rant that its not or whatever you like but it doesn't change anything.
          No_Ax_to_Grind
          • No rant necessary

            The onus is on you to prove that Bing is better,
            not on me that it is not. I never gave my opinion
            either way.
            Adam S
          • No need to prove anything, Bing is gaining share.

            People like it because its better, simple as that.
            No_Ax_to_Grind
          • You're not wrong...

            ...but you aren't right either. Correlation does
            not imply causation. Sometimes it isn't as simple
            as blindly clinging to the first hypothesis you
            conjure up. Your claim is unsubstantiated. I
            asked you for some proof and you waive any burden.
            Therefore, I won't accept your claim as being
            valid.
            Adam S
          • Bing Blows

            It works the same as the previous MS search, which takes longer for me to find what I'm looking for.
            The only reason they're market share is increasing is related to new Window 7 installs. Many users don't know how to change the default, don't know the difference or don't care.
            Rude Union
          • Bing is built into IE8

            You can change your primary search engine to something else, but you can't delete Bing from the browser. The delete option (on right mouse click) is conveniently grayed out.

            By using those standards, the No_Ax moron up above will justify it as 'popularity'
            Wintel_BSOD
          • You seem to be the curious one, you take it...

            Why does increased marketshare not indicate it's better? You gave a theory that is *sometimes* the case, but what we want is solid proof.

            thanks in advance for your answer.
            xuniL_z
          • Personally...

            I tried bing, but did not find it to be better than google. What I have
            noticed is; there are a lot of websites that have ?bing searches embedded
            in them?. It could be that Microsoft is paying these websites to use bing,
            and once bing gains enough market share, turn around and charge these
            websites for the privilege to use bing. I have seen this before, as it is a
            standard Microsoft tactic.
            Rick_K