No. Apple created a new Market at great risk and expense, and Google entered a it with a rip-off product. On the other hand Microsoft sacrificed three years to create an original product to compete fairly. But since Google didn't incur the risk and costs of creating said market and designing an original product, Google (supported by its search monopoly profits) could undercut them by dumping on to the market Android for free. And so Apple and Microsoft responded by suing for trampling on their intellectual property rights.

But wait, there's more! It doesn't end at Apple and Microsoft! Google also ripped off Sun by co-opting, without license, the Java dev environment (that cost Sun millions of dev dollars) and more importantly, the Java work force (that cost Sun billions of marketing dollars), just so they could get more people to make apps for their mobile OS. Guess what! Sun/Oracle sued them too!

Wow, if all these companies are suing Google for ripping them off (and considering multiple patent-related injunctions issued against Android vendors), it must mean Google has been ripping them off!

See? I can spin facts to support arbitrary biases as well.

Now, let's drop the incendiary language that most posters here stoop to. Here's the (overly simplified) reality: Google took for free what they thought they could get legally away with (and their gambles have so far paid off), and their competitors responded by trying to restrict them by using other legal counter-measures. Each side is doing exactly what they can get away with legally. People just happen to side with Google because their actions agree with their personal biases.