I think he's going after the inverse point and in a sarcastic manner: that Google didn't bundle Android along with any of their popular products. Microsoft did by including IE with Windows which was then shipped with every computer, thus using their dominant marketshare of the OS space in order to take over the browser space.
Nope, I was very serious. The narrative of a company using its cash cow to finance a product, given away for free, that directly attacks the cash cow of another company was why the DoJ went after Microsoft for Netscape. A smart Microsoft lawyer could do a fairly easy narrative that in the case Google (cash cow: Ads) is going after Microsoft (cash cow: OS) via a free product (Android). Throw in patent violations and it is a pretty good narrative for a not-so-scary-anymore Microsoft.
You and others (given the down votes) may not agree with the narrative and don't want to hear it, but it is a probable argument that can be used to go after Google and stay any effort to allow them free use of other companies patents. The original DoJ's case against Microsoft attacking IE was rather out there given Microsoft's other behavior (i.e. no matter what OS you buy Microsoft still gets its fee).
// I think this is my last comment on any Google story. Companies can do cool stuff and still do uncool things, just like people. Every company tries to protect its revenue stream in whatever way it thinks up.
