HOME / technology: The future and what to do about it.

The Case Against the Case Against GoogleThe Department of Justice should take a hint from the Microsoft suit: no more antitrust actions against tech companies.

Is Google too powerful? The Justice Department's Christine Varney thinks so. As Fred Vogelstein reports in Wired, the attorney who represented Netscape during the federal government's long-running Microsoft antitrust case sees the tech world's newest giant as the latest threat to online innovation. "For me, Microsoft is so last century," Varney told a conference last year. "They are not the problem. I think we are going to continually see a problem, potentially, with Google." Ever since Barack Obama appointed her to head the DoJ's antitrust division, Varney has been promising a tough line against firms that dominate their industries. The online-policy wonk doesn't just think Google is getting too big. She might be ready to do something about it.

Before we get too excited about a potential antitrust action against Google, it's worth noting that the rest of the Obama administration appears less enthusiastic than Varney about a potential trustbusting spree. I'm on the anti-Varney side as well: Prosecuting tech giants for getting too big is so last century. Google may well become the next Microsoft, acquiring enough industry power to hold its rivals hostage. But in the years since the Microsoft trial, we've learned that such power isn't of great use. Google may be big now, but it'll eventually find itself just as beaten down as Microsoft has become, and it'll get there without any help from the government. How can I be so sure? Because we've seen this movie before.

I never thought I'd say this, but here goes: The antitrust prosecution against Microsoft was misguided. To be sure, the government had the facts right—in the late 1990s, the software giant looked unbeatable. Microsoft's operating system came pre-installed on nearly every computer sold in the world; every business, whether large or small, considered its Office suite indispensible; its Web browser had become the dominant way most of the world got online; and it looked bent on becoming a powerhouse Internet company, too.

Every shred of evidence presented in the trial showed that Microsoft used its power ruthlessly. Microsoft strong-armed computer makers into leaving Netscape's browser off their machines—it even threatened to cancel Office for the Mac if Apple didn't make Internet Explorer the default Mac browser. Bill Gates was personally involved in keeping competitors at bay. When Gates learned that Intel was building a chip that would let programmers deploy enhanced graphics within non-Microsoft operating systems, he wrote to Intel CEO Andy Grove, "I don't understand why Intel funds a group that is against Windows 95." Intel stopped developing the chip.

But if the government was right on the facts, it was wrong on the big picture. The theory behind the prosecution was that Microsoft's mobster tactics would raise the price of software and slow down innovation. But that didn't happen. In 2002, Microsoft settled the antitrust case with the Bush administration; it faced no substantial penalties for its years of bad behavior. At that point, it still looked unbeatable—it had the same OS monopoly, office-software monopoly, and Web-browser monopoly. And you know what happened? It got beat anyway. Many of Microsoft's assets turned out not to matter, because upstarts like Google and old foes like Apple found ways to innovate around them.

Print This ArticlePRINTEmail to a FriendE-MAILShare This ArticleRECOMMEND...Get Slate RSS FeedsRSS
Farhad Manjoo is Slate's technology columnist and the author of True Enough: Learning To Live in a Post-Fact Society. You can e-mail him at and follow him on Twitter.
Photograph of Sergey Brin and Larry Page by Ralph Orlowski/Getty Images.
COMMENTS

It's hardly that anti-trust was unnecessary. The real lesson is that antitrust action needs to be timely and decisive. By the time the regulators ruled in favor of Netscape, there wasn't much of a Netscape around to save any more. In an ideal world Microsoft should have been drawn and quartered back around 1992. You say- Microsoft eventually faltered on its own anyways. That's like saying 'why bother trying to catch the Zodiac killer- he eventually died of natural causes anyways'. MSFT had a de facto monopoly for over 15 years. During that time it had quashed or bought up and ruined tons of potential rivals already. The damage is already done. If Netscape was allowed to compete squarely with MSFT 18 years ago, it probably would have way surpassed Chrome et al by now.

Same with Google. It's time to break this behemoth up before Yahoo kicks the bucket. Of course, Google is far from the biggest offender. EBay should be the first on the chop board.

-- icemilkcoffee
(To reply,
click here)

I'd be more concerned over Google's practice of dumping software on the market for free. I've always been amazed and bewildered at the ability of software makers to essentially dump products on the market for below cost, or in fact for no cost whatsoever, and it not be a problem like a company dumping physical products on the market below cost. Somehow, because it's software, we view it differently from tangible products, which is in large part the main problem with the software and computer industries.

The EU views this differently than the US, hence the EU actions against MS that the US failed to ever follow through on.

-- opus512
(To reply,
click here)

What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
TODAY'S PICTURES
TODAY'S CARTOONS
DOONESBURY FLASHBACK
TODAY'S VIDEO
Giving thanks.73/TP1.jpg
Cartoonists' take on Thanksgiving.69/091125_TC.jpg
The lighting of the bulb.52/DoonesburyPlaceholder.jpg