James DeLong released a clarifying take on Google's US antitrust actions against Microsoft.

The shortcomings of Google's position-

...what is really going on in Google's collective mind? I think it boils down to a couple of things. First, Google and Microsoft are colliding as the tech world evolves, so disrupting Microsoft's plans is its own reward. Second, Google has a dominant position in general Web search. Integrating Web search closely with desktop search would reinforce and extend this power. An effective way to accomplish this is to force Microsoft to do it in the name of "fostering competition."

How Google's actions contrast with the aims of the consent decree-

The weaknesses in Google's argument are that it has nothing to do with the original Microsoft case or with the purpose of the consent order, and that it does not relate to the conditions of the market that have developed in the years since the case ended.

...the very existence of Google renders most of the Microsoft consent order unnecessary. If Google were interested in promoting a competitive desktop operating system, it could create one or it could throw its weight behind Linux. In either case, its weight includes power over Internet search. Mr. Market agrees on the relative power of the two companies, because it gives Google a price-earnings ratio of roughly 46, more than double that of Microsoft.

Google may be a cool company, but the firm's reputation won't mask what its really doing.

An ironist might call this monopoly maintenance by Google. Perhaps antitrust fans can anticipate a U.S. v. Google, in which Exhibit 1 will be the intervention brief.