It's always funny when Microsoft calls a company out for monopolistic or anti-competitive practices.  I don't know exactly why.  Maybe it's because when I hear the word "monopoly" I automatically think of Redmond - they're the only company I've ever followed that has had anti-trust proceedings brought against them.  They may be the only ones in my lifetime, period (I don't follow a lot of companies outside the technology sector).

But when Google announced that it had snatched DoubleClick out from under their nose (official press release), Microsoft cried "monopoly".  Joined by Yahoo and AT&T, Microsoft is calling on the federal government to step in investigate whether or not Google has crossed the line into monopolistic waters.  Google, of course, says those claims are bogus:

In an e-mail to CNET News.com, Google spokesman Jon Murchinson said "We do not believe this acquisition is anticompetitive, as it promotes a vibrant, healthy market for online advertising." Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt told The New York Times: "We've studied this closely, and their claims, as stated are not true."  Source:  C|Net Google Blog

You can't ignore the irony of Microsoft or AT&T calling anyone else a monopoly.  AT&T is well-known for having been broken up into a number "baby bells" some 30 years ago… not to mention the fact that many of the "baby bells" have since re-merged.  And Microsoft continues to battle its own anti-trust demons, especially in Europe.  But I digress…

Some in the blogosphere are questioning Google's business practices more so than, say, a couple of years ago.  Nathan Weinberg at InsideGoogle had this to say:

Google is an arrogant company, always has been, and seems almost determined to do nothing to protect its image and appear as anything but. With this purchase, Google has officially shoved major corporations out of the way in an effort to gain market share and prevent other companies from competing, and that is a huge mistake.

Greg Sterling, in a great analysis of the situation, questions not only Google's approach to the DoubleClick purchase, but also Microsoft's lack of action.  He echos the sentiments of a growing number who are starting to question whether or not Microsoft is really serious about online advertising.  It's not as if Redmond was short on cash and couldn't afford DoubleClick.  Maybe, as others have said, Microsoft intentionally bid DoubleClick's purchase price up… just to make Google spend more?

None the less, Sterling had this to say about recent Google activities:

Google still has lots of fans, but it has come a long way from the cool, upstart search engine it once was. There’s a growing concern out there that Google has its fingers in too many pies and its becoming too dominant. I’m seeing this more frequently now — anecdotally.

I've already done a little ragging on Google today.  So I'm going to leave this one up to you.  There's a growing discussion about all of this and I'd love to know what some of you think.

Is Google becoming a monopoly?  Have they already become one?  Are they, as Om Malik suggests, willing to stop at nothing to control online advertising?  Is the biggest acquisition in Google's history the straw that will break the proverbial camel's back and prompt the government to step in?