> It does cost Google a lot of money to make, yet it gives phone manufacturers licenses for cheap, just to make phones cheap enough so that users chose them over iPhones. Google wants it so bad they are willing to lose a lot of money now hoping it will pay off in future when everyone has Androids. Apple (and Microsoft) who cannot use this model (they don't dominate in ads or search markets) obviously don't like this.

No need to wait for the future, Andy Rubin and Eric Schmidt have stated that Android is already profitable, through advertising revenue. That Microsoft and Apple can't compete with Google's business model is not unfair, it's business: they aren't owed profits, they must earn it.

In any case, you might as well say that Apple-Software "licenses" Apple-Hardware iOS for "free" and makes money from the App Store. Is it "unfair" that the Android Market doesn't dominate developer attention like the App Store has? And Microsoft in particular is trying to build its own search and ad presence, so they might in theory adopt Google's model; that they aren't successful enough to drop licensing fees is tough luck.

In any case, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to concerns that advertising-driven business models may cheapen software in the long term, but that this somehow justifies some pseudo-conspiracy to take down Android with patent litigation just flabbergasts me.