I'm On September 12, in a federal courtroom in Washington, D.C., the biggest antitrust trial in a quarter century will kick off.

I'm talking, of course, about the Google search case.

Here's what's happening. The Department of Justice is challenging two sets of agreements.

First, browser agreements. Google pays to be the default search engine on browser such as

Apple's Safari and Mozilla's Firefox.

Second up, Android agreements.

Google makes the Android smartphone operating system.

Google gives device makers and phone carriers options.

If they wish, they can use Android for free,

they can preload Google apps,

and they can share revenue on Google searches.

These options come with various conditions,

such as that Google apps be set as a device's initial defaults.

According to the DOJ,

these agreements are exclusionary practices in violation

of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Although they're regularly renewed and adjusted,

these agreements go way back. We're talking decades. This is interesting. After all, it's not against the law in the United States to be a monopolist.

It's not against the law to become a monopolist by providing the best product around.

Yet according to the DOJ, these agreements, which took shape before anyone would have considered Google a

monopolist, are illegal. There was a remarkable exchange during an earlier hearing in which

counsel for the U.S. said that, at some point, he didn't clarify when, Google should have decided that it's a monopolist, declared as much to its business partners, and terminated the browser agreements.

It should have, and I quote, written a letter to Apple and said, look, we find ourselves in a position where we're a monopolist now.

...