android is a free license and is protected by open sources licensing and is built on Linux which is made by Linus tovald who created it and gave it away for free. your silly to think any one pays for linux or could sell it with out fundamentally changing the way open source licenses work. why was Microsoft not allowed to include office or an internet browser with out antitrust issues and then the subsequent split due to its monopolistic practices. yeah your logic makes no sense.
Many Android OEMs pay Google to license not the core operating system but the Google Mobile Services that run on top of it and provide much of what many people associate with Android (Google Play Store, Chrome, YouTube, Search, Maps, Photos and a few more). You're right in pointing out that Google's Android essentially took a bunch of open source projects (Linux, Apache Harmony, Eclipse) and fashioned them into an iPhone competitor which is something that is missed in "Google give Android away for free" arguments given that charging for what you paid nothing for is morally dubious to say the least.
Microsoft hasn't included Office with their operating system sales, Office as a product has always been sold separately and is it's own business unit within Microsoft. Microsoft were also allowed to include their browser, what they ultimate weren't permitted to do is give it access to private APIs that other browsers couldn't access thus using their operating system monopoly to attempt to gain a monopoly in the browser space. You'll note that Microsoft wasn't broken up and Internet Explorer has been a part of the operating system in the US ever since.
apple can do it but anyone else that does it is completely in the wrong. this is why I steer clear of apple products. its not worth it for subpar hardware and ideas that were taken from smaller devs and added to their own software to push them out. smh I hope epic kills it in a battle with an actual jury not a single judge that used to be a lying lawyer with control issues.
Looks like Epic Games doesn't actually want a jury trial. Neither party seem particularly interested in throwing it to a panel of uninformed and would much rather it be decided by the judge based on the merits presented. Given how much Epic has invested in marketing to sway the global mindshare against Apple, it does seem surprising that they don't want a jury but I suspect they realise they've put offside just as many as they might have gained perhaps with those who are on Epic's side not being old enough to sit on a jury anyway. Oops.