Nick Carr points out that "every era of computing has its defining antitrust case," mentioning the ones versus IBM and Microsoft. So, he says:
With Google this week taking over YouTube, it seems like an opportune time to look forward to the prospect -- entirely speculative, of course -- of what could be the defining antitrust case of the Internet era: United States vs. Google.
He doesn't actually tackle the problem of Google's monopoly, but he is right on target in pointing out the difference between what Google says and what Google actually does:
Google's corporate pronouncements are carefully, and, by all accounts, sincerely, aimed at countering fears that it is building a competition- and innovation-squelching empire. But its actions often belie its rhetoric. Its founders said they had no interest in launching an internet portal, but then they launched an internet portal. They said they wanted customers to leap off Google's property as quickly as possible, but then they began cranking out more and more applications and sites aimed at keeping customers on Google's property as long as possible. The company's heart may be in the right place, but its economic interests lie elsewhere. And public companies aren't known for being led by their hearts.
