> The fact that someone uses their open source product is an endorsement to the open source movement, not of the company ...
Terribly ungrateful of you, but okay, it's not a crime.
> The fact that it is open source means that the company doesn't own the product nor can it control you.
No, releasing open source code doesn't imply signing away copyright or ownership. For instance, Mozilla owns Firefox (not only in the trademark sense); you can build another browser with their code, but you need to call it Iceweasel or something else.
> And the fact that it is open source means that the product is being made by contributions from the general public too, and not just the company.
Open source doesn't mean that at all. Good old immutable tarball dump can be every bit as open source as accepting contributions from everyone on the planet. In fact, check out esr's The Cathedral and the Bazaar.
"Open source" is already intentionally or unintentionally skewed to represent many things it isn't, please don't add more arbitrary attributes to it.