> Google doesn't make any money from Android.
Are you claiming Google puts out Android as an exercise in charity? If not, this is a non-sequitur.
> Which company has a founder/CEO who openly proclaimed in inflammatory rhetoric that he was going to "destroy" and go "thermonuclear"?
Ok, let's play this game too! Which company has a CEO who openly proclaimed "if you have something you don't want other people to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place"? Oh, hey, look, Google supports the NSA!
> shaken down
> abusing
> abusing the legal system
> Microsoft's shakedown of B&N's Nook
I thought we had discussed the usage of this rhetoric in view of your employer's antics. Don't remember? Read on!
> You think that's morally equivalent to Motorola?
Oh, you want to bring up Motorola? Well, aren't you in for a treat! Read on!
> This is about as intellectually honest as...
Oh, you want to talk intellectual honesty, do you? Well, why don't you read on to see what your employer has been up to!
> 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.
And there is nothing immoral about protecting your legally given IP rights. Unless, of course, you assume your definition of morality. Which oddly enough, happens to align with Google's whenever it's convenient.
> It is not evil, despite the fact that Jobs tried to say it was.
(This is an aside and actually detracts from my point, but I'm genuinely curious; did Jobs actually say that?)
>* 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.*
No, what is immoral is trampling on other people's Intellectual Property rights, ripping off their creative work without proper compensation, avoiding the extreme risks and expenses in creating a new market that they undertook, and then competing unfairly by undercutting them by dumping a product for free funded by search monopoly profits.
See? I can spin things to fit a narrative too!
And customers' choice?? Hah! Customers will choose whatever is cheaper, which is exactly why antitrust law has provisions against predatory pricing.
Wait, what's that? Google has not been sued under antitrust laws? Well, guess what, Microsoft and Apple have not been sued (successfully, at least) for abusing patents either, yet you and others here sling that accusation around here pretty freely.
But wait! Did someone say "sued for abusing patents"? (And here's the pay-off) Guess who has been sued and slapped by a federal jury with millions in damages for abusing patents!