"Google’s predatory distribution of Android at below-cost makes it difficult for other providers of operating systems to recoup investments in competing with Google’s dominant mobile platform, the complaint says."
see EU to probe Google's below cost licensing of Android: Courtesy Microsoft Nokia
Chuckle. Claiming licensing of an OS is “below cost” when Google makes a ton of money from advertising should not fly with the EU any more than M$’s complaint against Barnes and Noble did… “Instead of focusing on innovation and the development of new products for consumers, Microsoft has decided to invest its efforts into driving open source developers from the mobile operating systems market. Through the use of offensive licensing agreements and the demand for unreasonable licensing fees, Microsoft is hindering creativity in the mobile operating systems market…. Through the use of oppressive licensing terms that amount to a veto power over a wide variety of innovative features in Android devices of all kinds, as well as its prohibitively expensive licensing fees, Microsoft is attempting to push open source software developers out of the market altogether.”
M$ ended up paying B&N $300million even thought the ITC looked favourably upon M$’s complaint and rejected B&N’s defence. Apparently, that “win” did nothing to hold back Android/Linux.
The idea that an owner of copyright cannot give away it’s product is plainly silly. Copyright law says the owner can make copies any way they want, charging money or not.