http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~3/bPjNCxSc91M/article.pl

Read that, let it soak in, smile.  I have blogged about this before but I can't help giggling to myself.  I assume all the people who screamed for Microsoft to be fined, broken up, shackled with special restrictions (they have to run a lot of their plans by the DOJ), and forced to give up intellectual property such as Active Directory protocols to their competitors (IP that cost billions to develop) will now be screaming for the same thing to happen to Google.  Oh, and Apple is not far behind.  Apple has a great hit on their hands with iTunes, but they are being given an ultimatum in the EU to lower prices or face a full antitrust investigation. 

In case you're not following the irony, let me spell it out for you: Business B tries to compete with Business A in a free marketplace and ultimately is not as successful as they'd like to be.  Four main categories of options remain to Business B.  They can give up.  They can keep trying.  They can resort to illegal measures like kidnapping, blackmailing, and extortion.  But why resort to illegal measures when the legal measures are just as forceful, just as damaging, but perfectly above the board.  If Business A is big enough and Business B can find enough malcontents to help with legal funds, they can lobby the government to open an Antitrust suit.  No one states this better than Mr. Zuck in his DotNetRocks interview concerning the politics surrounding the OOXML debacle.  I urge you to give it a listen here: http://www.dotnetrocks.com/default.aspx?showNum=335

As Jonathan puts it, there are only three ways you can get yourself into Anitrust trouble in the US and the EU. As luck would have it, you must merely follow all three of these rules at once and you are safe:

1. Do not charge the same price as your competitors. This is Collusion and harms consumers.
2. Do not charge less than your competitors.  This is Dumping and harms consumers.
3. Do not charge more than your competitors.  This is Monopoly Rent and harms consumers.

Why would antitrust law involve a set of rules that are mutually excluisve and impossible to follow?  If you feel the intent of Uncle Sam is to "protect consumers" this is impossible to reconcile except perhaps by assuming the law is broken and not meeting its intent.  The law is not broken, and is precisely filling its intent. Without these laws, the bureaucrats would have a hard time marketing their sales as Thugs for Hire, but I'll come back to that.

Assuming a business wished to avoid Monopoly status at all costs, how might they go about this?  Are there objective measurements they can follow to avoid obtaining a certain market share?  Are there maximum profit margins they must seek to remain below?  There are, in many states, minimum margins certain businesses must observe.  A contractor in Wisconsin who marks up materials less than 6% will find themselves in court.  I suppose this is to protect consumers from the mental anguish resulting in determining how to spend that extra money?  Imagine that perfectly objective metrics existed for determining at what point Monopoly status is gained.  The business in question has only poor choices.  The business can opt to wait for the other shoe to fall, knowing that at any time their shareholders' wealth will be drained into legal defense.  The business can engage in self destructive behavior hoping to lose market share; if the business is a C-corp the agents are legally forbidden to do this and will find themselves in court.  Fingally, the business can start lobbying!  How might a Monopoly notification from our government look, anyway?

Google and Yahoo should not be investigated; Apple should not be investigated; Microsoft should not have been investigated.  There are already comprehensive fraud laws at the State and Federal level to protect consumers.  Beyond this, a business can only come to market dominance through a series of voluntary exchanges with clients and partners.  It is only the government, and not businesses, that can establish artificial barriers to competition.  Business owners have a right to their property.  Government power brokers will seize any excuse to violate or threaten to violate that right in order to furthur their own agendas.  Google, Apple, and Yahoo! are finding out that if you cannot pay the government Protection Money through the lobbyists, those that did open up their pockets will soon have access to all your hard work - either as it becomes public record entered into evidence at trial or forcibly taken from you by a binding judgement.  Just remember that by your willingness to infringe on the rights of others, you opened the door for the desecration of your own rights. 

I don't expect to hear public outrage against Google and Yahoo! ; only unpopular businesses receive this treatment.

Following the original Microsoft antitrust trials,  Bill Gates is famously quoted as saying "I should have spent more time in Washington".  This is to say, he feels he should have spent more time participating in lobbying and favor purchasing and less time running his business.  The power brokers in Washington wouldn't have it any other way.