While it might be a dream of publishers–hard hit by the digital tsunami and blaming Google for the crisis–Microsoft is not likely to fork over the big bucks they’d need for exclusive indexing of their content.

“Microsoft isn’t the monopoly guy anymore,” joked one source close to ongoing talks between Microsoft and publishers, especially News Corp. (NWS) and Associated Press. “So, it’s not going to be the bank for publishers.”

While a spate of reports has Microsoft (MSFT) execs girding the globe offering gobs of cash to content companies to block Google (GOOG) and favor its Bing search service, sources close to the situation caution that it is extremely unlikely that the software giant would pay giant sums for that pricey privilege, which many inside the company think will not help it gain much search share.

“While there is a lot of mutual interest, it’s doubtful Microsoft is going to pay to ‘rent’ a corpus of content that it does not own,” said one source close to the situation. “The economics are not there for anyone.”

Nonetheless, that has not stopped AP and News Corp. from aggressive public agitating recently about how their content has been treated online, accusing Google of a wide range of crimes against them and threatening to “de-index” their content from the search giant.

For example, News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch–who has been on what seems like a televised campaign against the search giant–accused Google of pilfering stories from his publishing properties.

Presumably, by yanking Google’s access to them and offering them to Microsoft, balance will be restored in The Force.

Except, not so fast, since such a deal would end up costing Microsoft a fortune, which is why several sources said its execs don’t seem to be keen on doing that without getting a lot in return.

The swirl of chatter about it, these sources said, is coming from publishers–who initiated the very early-stage talks–who are keen on playing Microsoft and Google against each other in hopes the warring tech titans will loosen their fat wallets to battle each other.

News Corp., for instance, has been looking for ways to replace the three-year, $900 million (or less) Google/MySpace search deal that expires next year. The publisher has been talking to Microsoft about some sort of exclusivity since this summer, but News Corp. executives also say they’re happy to work with Google if Google is willing to pay up. But what would either company really be buying?

Another source used YouTube as an example of Google getting a mass of videos, when it paid $1.65 billion in 2006 for the online video company.

“That made sense, since Google got all that content to use,” said the source. “But it is hard to see publishers getting the advertising economics and revenue they want from Microsoft for lending their content out, even exclusively.”

Still a third source noted that the only way such a deal could be envisioned by Microsoft is if a majority of publishers was able to band together to block Google from indexing their sites.

“If it was everyone, that might become interesting,” said the source. “But even that has issues, since Microsoft is not interested in having exclusive news for a temporary period of time by overpaying for it.”

Added the source, noting how much money Microsoft has lost in its online efforts so far:

“It’s essentially a marketing expense, and there are a lot better ways to spend that money to win market share than giving it to publishers.”

(Full disclosure: News Corp. owns Dow Jones, which owns this site.)

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Yahoo and Google have agreed to delay their online search advertising partnership to give the Justice Department more time to evaluate the deal.

A Yahoo spokesman confirmed the move in a statement: “The companies have agreed to a brief delay in implementing this agreement to continue our ongoing discussions with the Department of Justice. We have had discussions with regulators and look forward to responding to their questions about this agreement.”

A Google spokesman also added: “When we announced our advertising agreement with Yahoo! in June we agreed to delay its implementation until October to give regulators time to look at the details. As we are still in conversation with the Department of Justice we have agreed to a brief delay in implementing the agreement while those discussions continue.”

The delay could impact Yahoo’s share price on Monday, given the deal for Google to serve some of its search ads promised to give Yahoo (YHOO) hundreds of millions of dollars in additional revenue.

Still, the pair had few options of late but to cooperate fully with regulators.

Although Google (GOOG) execs have been especially adamant that the arrangement was going forward no matter what, the delay is now not as surprising, given the increasing opposition to the deal involving the No. 1 and No. 2 online search leaders in recent weeks.

So much so, that, according to several sources with knowledge of the situation, staffers at the Justice Department had recommended to their superiors that the deal be investigated further and even blocked in court.

Top Google execs have been in Washington, D.C. over the last week, seeking to change regulators’ minds, sources said, including offering up more proof that the deal would not result in a Google search ad monopoly and necessarily raise online ad prices.

But the problem has been that more critics have been joining the just-say-no-to-Yahoogle bandwagon–questioning the controversial ad deal for Yahoo to outsource some of its search ads to Google and its aggressive, damn-the-torpedoes approach to pushing the deal forward.

Just a few weeks ago, Google CEO Eric Schmidt told reporters the deal would not be delayed by Justice Department mulling. “Time is money in our business,” he said.

That might be, but time now apparently waits for regulators.

The partnership was set to start up around mid-October and promised to give the much-suffering Yahoo a huge boost in revenues.

Of course, the deal has been much lobbied against aggressively by Microsoft (MSFT), especially since Yahoo used it as a way to escape the software giant’s takeover clutches.

Nonetheless, critics like Microsoft have a lot of ammo, especially because Yahoo and Google together will claim over 80 percent of the search market.

That has caused a big outcry among advertisers and publishers to prevent the top two players from partnering at all.

BoomTown has been one of those objecting to the deal too.

In a post recently, I wrote: “Because while Google displays none of the bullying tactics of Microsoft in its glory days–think of it more like a giant that could accidentally squash all us little people with its big dumb feet–the worries about it amassing too much power are well-founded.”

What’s next is anyone’s guess. Google and Yahoo could agree to certain parameters in the deal, in order to assuage critics, or they could fight any regulatory action.

And, of course, they could abandon the deal, a move that most agree would hurt Yahoo more than Google–whose search market share has been ever-growing, even as Yahoo’s and Microsoft’s has declined.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Yesterday, BoomTown wrote a piece about Yahoo’s worries about the scrutiny that the monopolistic combination of Yahoo Mail and Microsoft’s Hotmail would get if it merged with the software giant.

The issue–which has not gotten a lot of attention–is actually a major sticking point in the price negotiations going on this weekend between the companies, as Yahoo (YHOO) seeks solid downside protection, if the deal becomes mired in approval issues by governmental authorities due to email and instant messaging dominance on the Web.

But Microsoft (MSFT) does not want to pay more, of course. And so the legions of minions under increasingly-under-pressure–translation: more yelling than ever this week–CEO Steve Ballmer are hard at work this weekend on all-nighters to solve the problem, said several sources.

One solution is to spin off all the communications assets, said sources, into a separate company. In that case, the two brands would remain, so as not to inconvenience consumers, although all the back-end technologies to run the services would be merged.

The more drastic step is for Microsoft sell Hotmail to a third party, especially given that Yahoo Mail is considered a stronger brand. Hotmail has already been in the midst of a transition, including a recent name change to Windows Live Hotmail.

Microsoft’s mail offerings now include Hotmail and also Windows Live Mail. The latter offering would presumably remain at the merged company with its @live.com address.

But Hotmail is the candidate to be sold off (with the requisite marketing to try to port its users over to @live.com first).

And potential buyers? Well, not Google (GOOG), but there are many, including AOL (TWX), Comcast (CMCSA) and AT&T (T), as well as IAC/InterActiveCorp (IACI). As to price, that’s unclear, but it could be in the billions of dollars.

That’s another plus for Microsoft, which will obviously have to fork over more money if it wants to acquire Yahoo.

And, it is also priceless if Microsoft can minimize government interference in the deal, most especially any antitrust investigations related to its powerful email assets.

That must be a worry, since Microsoft and Yahoo completely dominate all email on the Internet. According to the most recent comScore (SCOR) figures, for example, Yahoo has 256 million users, while Microsoft has 255 million.

Google’s Gmail is a distant third with about 92 million users and AOL has about half that at 49 million.

The same domination is true in the instant messaging market, with Microsoft and Yahoo holding an 80% to 90% market share together.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Let’s move this back-and-forth- wrangling aspect of the story forward and get to the real issues in the Yahoo-Microsoft takeover battle, shall we?

So why is Yahoo’s board holding out for a higher price than Microsoft wants to offer to raise it?

From numerous reports, Microsoft (MSFT) seems willing to go to $33 a share, up from its original $31, while Yahoo (YHOO) and its shareholders are looking for from $35 to $37.

Are they simply looking for a bigger payday? Do they believe it is worth more, in spite of recent mismanagement? Do they want to save face, given the Internet company once had a $41 offer from the software giant? Is this just a big game of digital chicken?

Yes. Yes. Yes. And definitely.

But, according to sources close to Yahoo, one of the more important reasons Yahoo wants a higher price has a lot to do with worries about the domination of the email and communications market if a merger with Microsoft took place and the threat of regulatory action that would force the companies to divest those assets.

Sources said that Yahoo wants a large cushion in case the government finds the combination of Yahoo Mail and Hotmail too much.

It is.

That’s because Microsoft and Yahoo completely dominate all mail on the Internet. According to the most recent comScore (SCOR) figures, for example, Yahoo has 256 million users, while Microsoft has 255 million.

Google’s (GOOG) Gmail is a distant third with about 92 million users and AOL (TWX)–which kind of started off the whole email craze among consumers–has about half that at 49 million.

The same is true in the instant messaging market, with Microsoft and Yahoo holding an 80% to 90% market share together.

Calling David Boies! It all smells like antitrust investigation to me!

A high-ranking Yahoo source agrees. “We need a lot of reason to do the deal, because it could be very bumpy once we agree,” said the source. “How damaged would Yahoo be if it did not go through, or if important pieces of Yahoo had to be separated from the company?”

Some close to the company, though, would prefer a spinoff of its powerful communications products and services, in the case of a Yahoo-Microsoft union. “We could be the Google of communications,” said one source.

Of course, Google does not want this to happen. In a recent CNBC interview, Google CEO Eric Schmidt signaled the search giant’s intentions related to this thorny communications domination with a loaded quote:

“If they go ahead and the merger’s ultimately successful, it would be possible for Microsoft to integrate some of the properties and essentially eliminate consumer choice, particularly in electronic mail, instant messaging, the things where they have 80% or 90% market share, and that’s a sweet spot for Microsoft in its ability to eliminate choice.”

And, in fact, Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang and Chairman Roy Bostock raised the issue in a letter on April 7 to Microsoft, rejecting Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer’s letter threatening to go hostile if talks did not proceed.

The Yahoo leaders wrote:

“As to antitrust, we have discussed with you our concerns. Any transaction between us would result in a thorough regulatory review in multiple jurisdictions. As a follow-up to a recent meeting among our respective legal advisers we had on this topic, and at your request, we provided to you on March 28 a list of additional information we would need to further our understanding of the regulatory issues associated with any transaction. To date, you have still not provided any of the requested information.”

According to one source, the antitrust concern that was not named was related entirely to email and instant messaging.

“Bring together our content and search is not an issue,” said the source. “But mail is a real problem.”

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.