Google isn't complaining about losing. It's complaining about the unfair way it believes the winners won.
From the original Google blog post.
From the update to the original google blog post. Maybe you should read the whole thing. It's not that long. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-patents-attack-a...
I'm of the opinion that there aren't really any true winners, at least in the public's eye, in patent bidding wars. But Google has definitely stumbled through the post-bidding PR.
If Google wanted to buy Novell's patents and use them as defensive patents - it makes little sense for them to go in partnership with the company it's trying to defend themselves against.
And about the Novell ones - is it still not clear why Google did it? They did it to get defensive patents against Microsoft. How would they have used those patents to counter Microsoft, if Microsoft had them, too?
The whole point of buying patents now is to use them to keep Microsoft and the others from attacking the Android manufacturers. If they buy them together with Microsoft, they can't stop Microsoft's other patents.
a. Google complains that these companies were colluding against them in the Novell deal. b. Microsoft shows that they were not in fact colluding against them in the Novell deal.
Whether or not it would have made business sense for Google to join that pool (it clearly wouldn't have) doesn't matter within the narrow scope of whether they're entitled to complain using the specific words they've chosen to make their complaint, which, for whatever reason, people seem to really enjoy discussing on the internet this week.
Google believes that a cartel of competitors formed to combine resources with the main purpose of using those resources to bid on IP to use against Android. The winning bid didn't reflect any individual competitor's valuation of the asset, but rather the aggregate of their valuations given that they all plan to use the asset as leverage against Android. Google thinks this is anticompetitive.