It took more than a decade, but the European Commission eventually forced Microsoft to unbundle its Windows monopoly from other software, in particular by giving consumers the choice of which web browser they want to use.
On April 20, the commission presented Google, one of the brightest stars in the modern tech firmament, with a "statement of objections" similar to the document that started the Microsoft case. Google, it argues, has followed a strategy to "preserve and strengthen its dominance in Internet search" by tying this service and some of its popular apps to Android, its mobile operating system.
This is not the only bit of Google's business that is facing antitrust scrutiny. Last year the commission accused it of having harmed consumers by using its dominance in the Internet-search market to steer them toward its own comparison-shopping service.
But the Android case stands out. It is particularly timely as more people move toward mobile apps and it is more of a threat to Google. Android is a key part of the firm's moneymaking machine. Plus, the case is more straightforward from the trustbusters' point of view. In terms of remedies, Google wouldn't have to rewrite its software, but simply change its conduct.
On the face of it, putting Android at the center of an antitrust case seems silly. It faces competition from iOS, Apple's mobile operating system. It is also "open-source." However, to be able to offer commercially viable products, it helps to pre-install some of Google's popular apps.
The problem is that these add-ons are not open source and come with strict licensing rules. The commission focuses on three: handset-makers that wish to pre-install Google Play must, among other apps, also add Google Search and make it the device's default search service; if they want to share in Google's ad revenue they have to exclusively pre-install Google Search; and if they pre-install Google's apps on any of their models, they must commit to install only Google's standard version of Android.
It is easy to see why Google would want to promote its search and other apps. The licensing terms, the firm argues, also serve to keep Android from fragmenting into incompatible versions. The commission argues that the licensing conditions limit the freedom of manufacturers to choose the apps they want to pre-install, and make it hard for rivals to compete on their merits.
The case won't be decided soon, unless Google opts to settle, which seems unlikely. In the Microsoft case, the remedy came late and was of limited relevance, but being under antitrust scrutiny forced the company to offer competitors more room. One of the main beneficiaries was none other than Google.
THE ECONOMIST
