Google's in denial over Google-Yahoo antitrust problems -- is recidivism in Google's future?

Google's CEO Eric Schmidt is in deep denial over the antitrust implications of Google being blocked by the DOJ from brazenly trying to collude to divy up the search market with its biggest competitor Yahoo.

In an interview with the New York Times' Miguel Helft, Mr. Schmidt made a couple of very brazen assertions that will obviously concern DOJ antitrust officials and State Attorneys General interested in preserving Internet competition going forward.

First, Helft asked about the proposed Google-Yahoo deal: "...was it a mistake for Google to propose the deal in the first place?"

• Schmidt: "We have no regrets about attempting to do the right thing from our perspective..."
  • Google has no regrets for attempting "collaboration" the U.S. Department of Justice concluded was illegal and anti-competitive?
  • Google thinks anti-competitive, illegal collusion is "the "right thing"?
    • Does anyone else find it remarkable that Google has said nothing since they dropped out of the deal to indicate that they grasp the seriousness or significance of the DOJ's conclusion/precedent or that they respect the rule of law?
    • Law enforcement routinely focuses on whether a lawbreaker admits culpability and accepts law enforcement's authority -- in order to guage whether or not the lawbreaker will be a repeat offender and break the law again.   

Second, Helft asked again about the Google-Yahoo deal: "Will Google think differently about deals after this incident?"

• Schmidt: "Probably not. I think this was a unique situation."
  • Unique?!
    • The proposed search advertising outsourcing deal with Yahoo is very similar to Google's search outsourcing/wholesaling deals with many of the largest search-query generating web properties in the world: AOL, MySpace, Ask.com, Craigslist, Amazon, and eBay internationally.
      • This DOJ action is relevant to all those deals and their future renegotiations, as well as any future attempts by Google to outsource search for other significant web entities.
    • It would be relevant to Google's designs to be the U.S. Government's search engine to access all Federal Government information in the next administration. 
    • In addition it is relevant to Google's designs to be the search engine for a wide variety of wireless carriers and wireless handsets -- i.e. Google's designs to dominate the wireless Internet search syndication market as well.   
  • If this was truly "a unique situation" as Mr Schmidt indicates --
    • Why did the DOJ define a second relevant market here which they called "search syndication", which in laymans terms is outsourcing or wholesaling search advertising?
    • And why did DOJ conclude that the Internet search syndication market was even more concentrated and less competitive than the Internet search advertising market everyone is familiar with?
  • Finally, how does a DOJ ruling that has competitive/anti-competitive implications for virtually all of Google's revenues warrant characterization as "a unique situation?"

Bottom line:

Google apparently learned nothing from its brush with Federal prosecutors and antitrust law enforcement.

• Google remains convinced it did, and is doing, "the right thing" from their perspective in its dealings with Yahoo and the Internet search syndication market.
• Google's leader also stated clearly that it will not operate differently going forward as a result of this enforcement action.

The law enforcement community has a term for Google's cavalier attitude: "likely recidivist."