Google is sort of everywhere these days. Between its successful Android platform and the ubiquity of Google services for consumers and businesses, it's getting hard to avoid the big G. Yet when its rivals form an organization like FairSearch.org and start calling out the search giant as monopolistic and anticompetitive, no one much seems to care. 

(See also: Microsoft's Complaint Against Android In Europe Is All Kinds Of Stupid)

It's a huge contrast with the smacking around Microsoft took a decade ago, when Windows dominated the PC universe and both U.S. and European antitrust regulators branded the company a monopolist. Microsoft, in fact, is still getting its butt handed to it in Europe, where it recently faced huge fines for failing to comply with earlier penalties.

These days, however, Google's Teflon coating remains largely unscratched.

Getting The Message Out

It's not like FairSearch, a tech lobbying group with 17 members that each have a reason to want Google hamstrung in one way or another, isn't trying. It has run advertisements. It has produced videos. It has held panel discussions. It has lobbied lawmakers and regulators.

The general response? Apathy.

For instance, two anti-Google videos FairSearch posted on YouTube have only 1,874 views. The group's Twitter account has 939 followers. Clearly, it's having trouble getting traction.

FairSearch basically faces two big problems. One is something it won't be able to fix very easily: the shoot-the-messenger problem. Read "FairSearch.org," and it's hard not to think "Microsoft" — Google's sworn enemy.

(See also: Microsoft Launching Another Pathetic Smear Attack On Google)

True, Microsoft is only one of the group's 17 members, and isn't even a co-founder. But it's still hard to take FairSearch's complaints at face value, because everyone knows they're self-serving and tailored to advance the interests of Microsoft and other members. Particularly when they follow Microsoft's own high-profile assaults on Google.

Too Big A Target?

The other problem is broader, but no less of a concern: FairSearch's message is too unfocused. Nor can it be tightened. It's a real dilemma.

When organizations or governments bust a company for antitrust violations, there's a clear black-and-white line that the company has to cross: they are doing something to reduce consumer choice. As much as FairSearch would like to pin that accusation on Google, there's little evidence that Google has done anything of the sort.

Last week, for instance, FairSearch complained to the European Commission that Google's Android operating system was an anticompetitive threat to the mobile market. My ReadWrite colleague Dan Rowinski did a pretty good job tearing that complaint apart. It's pretty simple: No user is forced to stay with Google services on Android. Nor is any manufacturer. So whose choices are being constrained?

That looks deliberate on Google's part. It's been very, very careful to be as big an influence on the market as possible without actually trying to establish direct control over anything. That makes it very hard for competitors to make the monopoly charge stick.

Fire A Shotgun, See What Sticks

Which may be why FairSearch is trying everything else under the sun. A quick look at its site reveals no fewer than nine lines of attack, include complaints about Google's acquisitions, "content scraping," "deceptive display," mobile, "search manipulation" and alleged unfair treatment of advertisers and partners.

This kind of unfocused effort suggests that FairSearch is taking a "see what sticks" approach, kicking up as much sand as possible in the hopes of clouding the view of government regulators.

Curiously, the one area where Google rightly gets smacked about sometimes — privacy — doesn't get much emphasis on the FairSearch site. Of course, its members probably want just as much user data as Google is collecting, so they don't see much advantage to rocking that particular boat.

Google's enemies have a tough nut to crack, and FairSearch's broad approach reflects that problem. The search giant has made a very good business out of mining user data and generating ad revenue without (as far as we know) crossing any serious lines yet. Until that changes, Google's competitors may have to deal with their Google problem by, y'know, competing.

Image courtesy of 1000 Words / Shutterstock

(This story has been updated to reflect additional comments Microsoft's Dave Heiner made Thursday night.)

Even as the Federal Trade Commission ends its two-year investigation of Google with a whimper, Microsoft is desperately hoping that the war isn't yet over. The latest battleground: the YouTube app for Windows Phone.

In a blog post on Thursday night, Dave Heiner, vice president and deputy general counsel from Microsoft, expressed his disappointment in the ruling, complaining that the FTC missed the boat on issues of data portability, standard-essential patents, and other issues that include search bias.

On the face of it, whether or not Google should be obligated to license Microsoft the API technology necessary to build a Windows Phone app to access Google's YouTube video service seems relatively trivial. In a blog post, Microsoft said that Google has unreasonably blocked access to the necessary APIs, preventing it from doing so. Google already supplies a YouTube "app," which is merely an HTML5 version of its website, which runs inside the Internet Explorer browser on the phone.

For its part, Google believes that's more than enough. “Contrary to Microsoft’s claims, it’s easy for consumers to view YouTube videos on Windows phones," a YouTube spokeswoman wrote in an email. "Windows phone users can access all the features of YouTube through our HTML5-based mobile website, including viewing high-quality video streams, finding favorite videos, seeing video ratings, and searching for video categories.  In fact, we’ve worked with Microsoft for several years to help build a great YouTube experience on Windows phones.”

The problem, according to Microsoft, is that Google's behavior with regard to Windows Phone YouTube app is emblematic of its behavior in general. Two years ago, Microsoft complained to the European Union about Google's tactics, as well as the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. (Longtime Microsoft watchers have long noted the irony of Microsoft complaining about anti-competitive actions, given the company's issues with the U.S. Department of Justice, and the possibility that the EU may impose fines or other sanctions after Microsoft ignored the browser choice restrictions from a previous EU settlement.)

But now the FTC has ended its Google investigation with a slap on the wrist, Microsoft can't seem to give up the fight: Dave Heiner, vice president and deputy general counsel from Microsoft said Wednesday that the YouTube app dispute is simply a representative example of the "misconduct" that Google has employed with respect to its practices on the Internet. "Just last month, we learned from YouTube that senior executives at Google told them not to enable a first-class YouTube experience on Windows Phones," Heiner wrote.

"Google often says that the antitrust offenses with which it has been charged cause no harm to consumers," Heiner added. "Google is wrong about that. In this instance, for example, Google’s refusal deprives consumers who use competing platforms of a comparable experience in accessing content that is generally available on the Web, almost all of which is created by users rather than by Google itself. And it’s inconsistent, to say the least, with Google’s public insistence that other competing services, such as Facebook, should offer Google complete access to their content so they can index and include it on their search site."

In his midnight post Thursday night, Heiner claimed that Google "inexplicably has not promised to allow all advertisers to port their campaign data to other ad platforms—only those with a primary billing address in the United States".

Microsoft also characterized the FTC's ruling on the so-called FRAND patent issues ineffective. Motorola Mobility, which was acquired by Google last year, has embroiled itself in a string of lawsuits, seeking to coerce royalties for patents used in developing standards like Wi-Fi. Heiner claimed that the FTC's lukewarm requirements, full of legal loopholes, would allow Google to continue its anti-competitive behavior.

"During patent licensing negotiations, Google can continue to threaten that it will sue for an injunction, knowing that many would-be licensees will not be in a position to engage in litigation or arbitration with Google and also meet all of the other procedural requirements set forth in the decree that are imposed on the licensee," Heiner wrote. "Google can even continue to use its standard essential patents to fend off patent infringement actions against it: the proposed decree gives Google leeway to sue for an injunction on its standard essential patents if it takes the position that injunctive relief sought against it is based on a patent that is standard essential."

Now that the FTC has made its ruling, those concerns may be moot. But Microsoft made several references to behavior overseas, an indication that it may be seeking to tacitly plead its case before the European Union - which some now see as the "hard man" of international antitrust law. Whatever the situation, it's clear that Microsoft has no intention of giving up its fight against Google.

See also Google Escapes Unscathed From FTC Settlement and Google's FTC Settlement Is An Epic Fail For Microsoft.