"This is a great strategy in light of US anittrust [sic] theories over the past 40 years, during which time antitrust regulators promised to leave companies alone as they formed monopolies, provided they didn't hike price after attaining monopoly dominance."
No, Cory, that's not what happened and there was no "promise." The new theory of anti-trust was "consumer harm." Hiking prices is certainly one form of that, but so was forming a monopoly. Microsoft was prosecuted for forming a monopoly and reducing consumer choices.
"Google's true operating costs aren't captured by adding up its salaries and servers – a correct accounting must include the costs of acquiring companies and with them, patents. That's the cost Google must incur, if is to retain its power."
No, Cory, those are not "operating costs," those are called "capital costs." They're treated real differently in Accounting.
I was part of this "acquire patents" effort at Google. I actually interviewed people to be in Legal whose job would be to acquire patents. The theory (since discarded) was that a heavy patent portfolio would give you a better negotiating position if you were sued. There was no thought of actually asserting these patents against Microsoft, or anyone.
I actually used some of our internal tools to assess our patent portfolio. Most of those Motorola patents were worthless.