The recent antitrust case against Google has drawn comparisons to the landmark Microsoft antitrust case of the late 1990s. In that case, Microsoft was accused of using its power in the PC market to stifle competition and maintain its monopoly, specifically with regards to its Internet Explorer web browser.
The Google case likewise centers around the tech giant’s alleged monopolistic practices in the online search and advertising market. Like the Microsoft case, Google is accused of creating a “continuous and self-reinforcing cycle of monopolization” by locking advertisers and publishers into its properties.
However, there are differences between the two cases that could have implications on their outcomes. One key difference is the fact that Google’s services are largely free to consumers, raising questions about consumer harm – a critical component in antitrust trials.
In addition, while the Microsoft case was largely about the company’s power over software, the Google case is about advertising, which might result in different legal considerations.
Overall, analysts and legal experts are looking to the Microsoft case for answers as it could provide valuable perspectives and insights. But it remains to be seen whether the Google and Microsoft cases will play out similarly or diverge due to the differences in circumstances.
