[kevin_morrill]

Antitrust doesn't really on reason. It's a completely subjective law. In one breath you can be guilty because you have prices too low, in another because you have prices too high. Ultimately, it relies on how much pull you can exercise of politicians and bureaucrats.

I am not saying it's a good situation, just that that's reality.

[flomo]

That is likely the case, but technical fora tend to be overly concerned with "tying" (e.g. Internet Explorer or iTunes), while overlooking the indisputable fact that Microsoft did run a "trust".

MS had a set of legal contracts which gave them total control over PC distribution and pre-installed software. (And, they even had deals with their main competitors, Apple and IBM.) That was a much lower bar and easier for the government to make their case. In fact, the IE "tying" case was ultimately tossed out.

If anything, Google probably has more potential Antitrust issues in their relationship with Android handset makers than they do cross-promoting products on the web.

[kevin_morrill]

Tying as a legal issue has never made sense to me, and seems incompatible with private property and contract law. As a consumer, I don't have a right to an imaginary version of Windows without Internet Explorer that I wish Microsoft would build. Likewise, as a handset vendor, I don't have a right to an imaginary contract with Google where I get everything I want on my terms.

Tying laws, and antitrust broadly are a way for regulators to forcibly dictate what companies create. As stated above what's really revolting is this typically comes as a result of competitors lobbying to cripple the top player in the industry.