Now, who has an incentive to launch patent lawsuits as an attempt to restrain competitors? The one whose business model is fundamentally threatened by open, free operating systems, or those who don't make any money from them? Which actors have an incentive to try and impose costs on open source? It is fundamentally not in Google's interest to ban iPhones, as they make money on iPhones just like they do the desktop Web. A commoditized mobile industry, or a competitive mobile industry is a net win for Google, only a monopoly monoculture is a loss for Google. Left to their own devices, Google could undermine iPhone by just shipping Android for free, no need for legal fights to undermine it.
Microsoft in particular had a plan to try and stop Linux when it started eating up the server-side market by launching or threatening patent IP issues, for much the same reason as the current attacks on Android. The reality is, the only recourse for proprietary vendors to go after something that is free is to use the force of government and the courts.
Which company has a founder/CEO who openly proclaimed in inflammatory rhetoric that he was going to "destroy" and go "thermonuclear"? Which company has threatened and asserted more patent attacks? You cite a single instance in which Google inherited a long running fight between Motorola Mobility and Apple, but completely ignore the fact that Apple has sued pretty much every Android vendor, and Microsoft has shaken down many. What do you call Microsoft's shakedown of B&N's Nook? You think that's morally equivalent to Motorola?
This is about as intellectually honest as the people who try to compare Fox News to CNN, or claim that the "extreme left" in Congress is just as bad as the "extreme right", despite the fact that none of the "socialists" in Congress have brought the government to a two week shutdown, or a debt crisis.
I don't call someone who abuses the system better at "playing the game", that suggests that this is a fun activity with no moral or ethical repercussions. I call someone who is better at abusing the legal system MORE immoral than someone who is doesn't do it as much.
In order words, it is not a game. Calling it one is a disingenuous attempt to paper over what is disgusting behavior and whitewash it enough that you can try to draw a moral equivalence by leveling it all out.
Yes, Google is pursuing what is in their self interest, but there is nothing immoral about releasing stuff as source for free or competing in the marketplace. It is not evil, despite the fact that Jobs tried to say it was.
What is immoral is gumming up the courts and using the force of the government to beat your competitors because you can't stop consumers from choosing other products.