It's pretty clearly established at this point that Google bought Motorola Mobility in large part because of the patents. The number being tossed out is that 50% of the price was for the patents. A big part of the reason for those patents was to fend off Microsoft, who has been quite aggressive in claiming patents over things in Android. In fact, multiple sources have reported that thanks to patents and licensing, Microsoft actually makes more money from Android than from Windows Phone. Talk about perverted patent economics.

Of course, the big question that many raised when Google did this deal was whether it would actually push some handset makers away from Android, out of a fear of competing with their own supplier. While big Android players like HTC quickly downplayed that risk, insisting that they were committed to Android, at least some are speaking out about being less willing to bet on Android, and how it might even drive them to look more closely at Microsoft's Windows Phone operating system.

Let's unpack this for a second, because it begins to show just how ridiculous this overall situation is:

• Microsoft, thanks to patents, makes more money from Android phones.
• In order to fend off patent threats, Google buys Motorola to get its patents.
• In doing so, handset makers scared of competing with Google, start looking at Microsoft as a partner.
• The end result: Microsoft may get more handset partners, but less money, since Android is a pure licensing profit center.

So, the Google buy may result in fewer Android devices and more Windows phones... but less money for Microsoft. Whatever happened to the simple system where companies just compete in the market place and the best one wins?