Google's Growing Vertical Conflicts of Interests

In ominous cross-pond agreement for Google, the Financial Times and the New York Times agree that Google needs more antitrust accountability:

• See the FT editorial; "Google should be watched carefully"
• The the NYT editorial: "The Google Algorithm."

Google itself has put the issue of "search neutrality" on the map with its FT op-ed and Google blog post and by saying they are for now for search bias after being against it.

Google's proposed acquisition of ITA software to beef up the Google Travel vertical, has put on everyone's radar screen the anti-competitive potential of Google continuing to extend, tie,and leverage its global search monopoly into content verticals like travel.

The FT got the concern over vertical abuse right: "...the potential for antitrust abuse through the tying of vertical services to search raises clear concerns."  

However, the NYT missed the mark on vertical abuse: "Forbidding Google to favor its own services -- such as when it offers a Google Map to queries about addresses -- might reduce the value of its searches."  

• Why the NYT misses the vertical abuse mark here is that it fails to understand that antitrust is about ensuring companies don't monopolize markets or anti-competitively restrain competition.
  • The NYT has not thought through the logical conclusion of Google's antitrust defense which in essence is that:
    • A Google monopoly is better for users than a competitive market; and
    • If a monopoly uses its core market power to monopolize other vertical markets, it is only anti-competitive if the user is worse off.
  • The NYT appears to be forgetting the century old wisdom of antitrust, common sense and experience, that if monopolies are unfettered to extend their monopolies, self deal and front-run, everyone but the monopoly is worse off.

In sum, beware of Google's benevolent monopolist claim of "no harm no foul"...

• and beware of Google's "trust us" argument that if it can make a plausible case that it can provide a users a better product and service in the short term, that it is in the users'/consumers' long term interests to be at the mercy of a relentless pervasively spreading digital information monopoly. 
• It is Google's twist on the old line, "we are from Google, we are here to help you."