Speculating whether they "might do something" without specifics seems fruitless.
The 1999 "Findings of Facts" in the US vs MS case should give a good idea of what is needed. It is quite readable, written in plain language, and totally ignored by the pundits who commented the case at the time.
A copy can be found here: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~richard/findfact.html
If there was a causation, then if you want higher SERPs, you'd need to use AdSense over competing ad providers. Essentially, using their monopoly in Search to be anti-competitive in text-ads.
I wonder if anybody has done such a test already...
All of their software was designed to lock you in. It could sometimes be difficult to use a Microsoft product without having to use others. It can be a hassle to buy a new PC without Windows, but you couldn't do it at all back then. After the OS/2 fiasco they screwed IBM on Windows 95 pricing. Other OEM's were getting it for a few bucks and IBM had to pay retail initially.
It does concern me when one company dominates a market the way Google does and I think we need to keep a very close eye on them, but I don't see anything anti-competitive about what they're doing yet. In fact, they typically go out of their way to be open to the point where some of their applications allow you to move your data to a competitor's application.
That said, Microsoft, just like Google now, built their monopoly with a better product. It wasn't until much later that they became slimy.
'For example, we just released Gmail, a free e-mail service. We said, “We will not hold your e-mail hostage.” We will make it possible for you to get your e-mail out of Gmail if you ever want to.'
But I haven't actually figured out how to do that yet. Does anyone know?
I fire up thunderbird everyonce in a while to basically backup my emails because of those horror stories of people losing all their email or even access to the account