I'm not sure that Google concentrates it's lobbying efforts to say anything one way or the other about Microsoft. It seems it's biggest efforts were in trying to prevent SOPA/PIPA.

Google outspent Microsoft in lobbying efforts spending in the US in 2011.

Also, it has a commercial interest in SOPA not passing so their opposition is to be expected for their bottomline.

If you think lobbying isn't done to enhance any company's bottomline at the expense of everyone else, then you're mistaken.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2007/06/09/google-reveal...

Sure, maybe Google spent a lot on lobbying in 2011, but you don't know that any of that was smearing Microsoft from behind a sock puppet in the way that they have against Google here. While I don't like lobbying, I accept that Google needs to play the game while the rules are the way they are, and they don't necessarily have to badmouth Microsoft to do that - as you admit, they have presumably focused more on SOPA.

And I don't see the huge problem with the link you present - in fact I don't think I'd call it "lobbying" at all. Google had a potentially legitimate complaint in asking that the court overseeing a convicted monopolist considers a particular part of their behaviour which obviously has the potential to impact on Google. It's up to the court to decide if they're infringing or not.

Can you show me a single example where Google did anything like this?

You are so funny.