Gates, Ballmer, Brin and Page can't escape Washington's reach. | AP, Reuters Photos Microsoft-Google feud comes to D.C.

Microsoft may have filed its antitrust case against Google in Europe for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks: That’s where the money is.

The European Commission has a history of levying big fines against monopolists — and Brussels is widely seen as friendlier terrain than Washington for trust-busting — so it makes sense that Microsoft would take a shot at Google far from Redmond or Mountain View.


But the feud didn’t start in Europe, and it’s not going to end there.

Sooner or later, it will be back in Washington — and, in fact, it already is.

The Justice Department is in talks with Google over its move into travel — and threatening to take the search giant to court if it doesn’t scale back its plans. Lawmakers from both parties are calling for congressional hearings into Google’s expansion beyond search.

And Microsoft is probably hoping that its antitrust case against Google in the European Union will prod the Justice Department into launching a similar one here.

“I would assume that they have made the same complaints to the DOJ,” said Gary Reback, an attorney who has represented parties aligned with Microsoft in other antitrust matters.

But the standards for an antitrust case are higher in the United States, and the politics are trickier, too.

Google has been one of the few bright spots in a struggling economy — so much so that President Barack Obama used his State of the Union address to single out the company as an American innovation heir of Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers. And former Google CEO Eric Schmidt has been cozy with the administration, to the degree that rumors linger that he’ll be Obama’s next commerce secretary.

Given all of that, Reback and other observers think it’s unlikely the administration will turn around and launch a wide-ranging antitrust case against Google.

“Right now, our standard seems to be how much in political contributions you’ve made, which hasn’t seemed to be the standard in Europe,” Reback said.

“A lot of people in the U.S. want an investigation of Google, so this could be another straw on the camel’s back,” added Herbert Hovenkamp, a University of Iowa law professor and antitrust expert. “But we don’t usually play follow the leader on something just because the EU is doing it.”

But one way or another, shots from the Microsoft vs. Google fight will land in Washington as what has been a mostly behind-the-scenes battle breaks into open warfare.

“If you have a heavyweight fight between two equal companies, you usually spill a little blood somewhere, at some point,” said Dave Levinthal, spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics. “So it certainly would not be shocking if it got a little messy between now and its conclusion.”

Both companies are notable spenders in Washington. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Microsoft shelled out $6.9 million in lobbying last year. Google spent less — about $5.1 million — but its Washington presence is growing as fast as its business profile. Industry experts expect both sides to ramp up their activities now, as the antitrust issues take center stage.

“Google is going to be trying to get members of Congress to support it, and Microsoft is going to be trying to get members of Congress to raise questions about Google,” said Bill Allison, editorial director of the Sunlight Foundation.

Microsoft may have an early advantage because it’s willing to play a variant of the Washington game that may appeal less to Google and its “Don’t Be Evil” vibe.

One tech lobbyist told POLITICO, for example, that Microsoft has centered some of its Beltway strategy on “pushing folks to investigate Google” long before it filed its antitrust complaint in Brussels — but that it’s not clear whether Google has the stomach to return fire.

“It appears Google is willing to defend itself from accusations that are untrue or unfounded, ... but it’s not within their company culture to organize a campaign to cause trouble for Microsoft,” the source said.

Yet Google may have no choice as it squares off against a company that knows regulatory scrutiny far too well. It wasn’t long ago, after all, that Microsoft found itself on the other side of an antitrust case — a fact the company acknowledged Thursday in noting the “irony” of its filing.

“We readily appreciate that Google should continue to have the freedom to innovate,” Microsoft’s general counsel, Brad Smith, said in a blog post announcing the European complaint. “But it shouldn’t be permitted to pursue practices that restrict others from innovating and offering competitive alternatives. That’s what it’s doing now.”

A writer for ZDNet UK suggested Thursday that Microsoft’s decision to file an antitrust case is an admission that it can’t compete in the marketplace.

“Behind the breathtaking volte-face lies a profound admission implicit in Microsoft’s new stance: If it claims monopolies are bad, then Microsoft recognizes it no longer has much chance of creating or maintaining one,” the writer said.

“These overt actions by Microsoft signal that it has lost the battle to assert itself through raw market power, and it is not confident it can do so through technology. Only legislation lies between its current position and capitulation.”

Microsoft may not be able to get much help in the form of legislation from Congress, but it appears to be succeeding in getting some scrutiny for Google.

The Senate’s top antitrust subcommittee chief, Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), has long been eyeing a hearing on Google. He reaffirmed his commitment to that cause this week, noting in a statement that his panel would examine the sort of antitrust concerns aired by Microsoft in Europe.

Others — including Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — have also questioned whether Google poses risks to industry competition. Separately, one Democratic aide to the Senate Judiciary Committee told POLITICO on Thursday that hearings would offer the subcommittee a chance to oversee not only Google’s growth but the agencies reviewing it.

And the states, too, are increasingly taking aim at Google.

It was a coalition of attorneys general — led by Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal when he was still Connecticut’s top cop — that hit the pavement after Google inadvertently intercepted data over Wi-Fi networks while mapping neighborhoods. Representatives for attorneys general in Ohio and Texas told POLITICO Thursday they’re examining the details of Microsoft’s new filing.

In a statement Thursday, Google said it’s “happy to explain to anyone how our business works.”

It’s not clear how any of it will turn out — except that it will turn out well for lawyers, lobbyists and others who stand to profit from the fight.

“Anytime a corporation finds itself in the government’s cross hairs, it rarely just rolls up into a ball and cowers,” Levinthal said.

“On the contrary, it mobilizes, and it gets ready to fight because it’s a lot easier to spend an extra few millions of dollars upfront to save yourselves tens or hundreds of millions of dollars” on legal fees and business losses.

And with Microsoft’s European filing, that kind of money is clearly at stake. The European Commission has the ability to slap antitrust violators with civil penalties as much as 10 percent of worldwide sales. Google’s 2010 revenues exceeded $29 billion.

Elizabeth Wasserman contributed to this report.