Where did I say that? There's a difference between giving something away for free and altruistic charity. Apple gave away OSX, are you suggesting it's an exercise in charity? Android is a strategic moat for Google's main business, it is not a profit center.
On Steve Jobs, http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-says-googles-dont-...
"We did not enter the search business, Jobs said. They entered the phone business. ... This don’t be evil mantra: “It’s bullshit.”
The implication in Job's quote is that Google was wrong, unethical, or evil to "enter the phone business", as if Apple has some god given right to own the phone business?
The rest of your post comes down to a disagreement on basic principles for which we will never agree. I have opposed software patents for decades, far longer than I've been a Google employee (indeed, I was attracted to Google because of its stance on software freedom) From your profile and your posts, you seem to have a vested interest in patents, possibly even a lawyer or an employee of IP vultures. That's fine, as Upton Sinclair said "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" My salary doesn't depend on open source or being against software patents, I have hated them since I began programming software in the 80s. I stand against them on principle, and I don't believe in intellectual property in general.
All the other attempted utilitarian justifications are bullshit. They might hold for pharmaceuticals, or other industries where it may take 10 years to R&D a drug, but the idea that software patents represent extreme risks and expenses in development is ludicrous, and anyone who has written more than a few thousand lines of code knows that. The VC justification is bullshit too, I founded, raised funding, and sold two startup companies without patents.
The concept of predatory pricing makes no sense for something owned by the public (open source). I would argue that if companies battling it out is creating and giving away knowledge or information to be owned by the public and freely copied, then it is a good for society and is exactly the kind of thing we want to be encouraging.
Your vested interest is in protecting corporate interests against the public it seems. If Google stood against the public interest in this regard, I would be the first to raise hell. It just happens my employer, for the most part, shares the same view I've always held.