Ah, Joe Wilcox, you say you don't like the Google-DoubleClick merger. That's what you say, but in fact what you don't like is Google.

You're in such a rush to pillory Google, its lack of ethics and its penchant for disregarding the wishes of content owners, that you barely mention DoubleClick at all, except to say that by approving their merger, the FTC is enabling bad corporate behavior. And I agree: Google has shown itself to be ethically challenged and hearing-impaired when it comes to the wishes of content owners (be they amoral corporate giants like Viacom or authors, librarians and other custodians of intellectual property). It's deplorable behavior.

But where you and I part company is that I don't think those are reasons for the FTC to quash the deal. Or that, of all companies, Microsoft's history should serve as any kind of lesson in this case.

Microsoft was convicted of acting to abuse its monopoly position, here in the U.S., in Europe and even in Korea, where Chaebols are a part of life.

Not so with Google. It may be that Google sees that cooperation and openness are more than moral positions—they make good business sense—but still, it hasn't tried to impede competition by making its products inoperable with those of others.

You say Google plays fast and loose with intellectual property rights? But you've described yourself the abusive ways by which Microsoft decides to revoke your property rights even after you've paid for them!

You want to say no company should be allowed to get this big. Fine, but let's get our priorities straight and define the ground rules. Is ConAgra's hold on the food chain fair game too? Can we bust up Exxon-Mobil's chokehold on our lungs? If so, then let's save the angst over monopolistic Internet search engines for when those egregious examples of the amorality of capitalism are addressed, shall we?

You also put the boot in to Google because it doesn't create anything (whereas Microsoft at least creates software), but I'd say that Google offers a service. Yes, it makes money from the ads it serves in compensation for that service, but you only pay for it if you click on those ads.

And Google isn't the only one making money off of those ads—in fact, it only makes money if you click on the ads that help countless of businesses, big and small. You could argue that Google is the greatest leveler of all.

Your conclusion is that we should be wary of charming grifters. But I'm sure I don't need to remind you that the original practitioner of the long con was Odysseus of Ithaca, who hid himself in the belly of a horse, giving us the world's first Trojan, as well as the expression, "Beware of Geeks bearing gifts." (Later corrupted to "Greeks.")

Google is strictly into the short-con, playing suckers for tens and twenties. Microsoft is after our sons and daughters. If I have to choose between the two, I'll take the short con, please.