I feel like the answer to this is pretty obvious, but to state the obvious, Google exists in the same timeline as the companies in other industries that I listed, and in most cases have arrived later on the timelines and engaged in less egregious offenses than a number of other companies, yet Google were prioritized for anti-trust action ahead of those other companies.
>why the fact that other industries also ought to be broken up has any bearing on whether Google has engaged in anti-competitive behavior?
I think if you read my comment and heard "Google is not engaging in anti-competitive behavior", you heard something I did not write. I think a wide range of companies ought to be challenged for anti-competitive behavior, including Google, and many of them have engaged in much more egregious offenses than Google, yet Google is targeted while others haven't been. Whatever impetus would have lead to prosecuting Google out to have lead to targeting a number of other companies before getting to Google.
The hypothetical possibility that worse companies that ought to have been higher priorities might possibly be prosecuted in the future is not something that I feel is responsive the to point here.
Trying to bag multiple tech companies seems like a recipe for failure.
> the government will only be able to put its best lawyers on some cases.
Also, I think you really underestimate how many competent prosecutors the government has - they can handle more than one anti-trust case at a time.
None of these, with the possible exception of telecom, are monopolies or engaging in specific anti-competitive behavior. I agree that the pattern of consolidation there is bad, but I fail to see
a. how this announcement precludes any other lawsuits against the companies you're mentioning b. why the fact that other industries also ought to be broken up has any bearing on whether Google has engaged in anti-competitive behavior?