I get that Paul's the "windows" guy, but this post comes off as way less informed than he usually is.
Android and Windows Phone are the only two OS's competing for the third-party smartphone market. Everyone else - Apple, Rim, and HP, are companies that tie their OS to their own devices alone. Android is doing well because it got to this market early and has allowed its partners to customize the OS to allow for brand differentiation. With the exception of the Nokia deal, Microsoft has been very reluctant to allow manufacturers to customize the os.
Android certainly isn't "free" as Paul suggests. Microsoft has worked out licensing deals with most of the manufacturers, so their is a cost associated with it.
Google has managed to develop their business in such a way that they don't need to make their money through licensing. The job of companies who choose to still charge for their products is simply to show that there is enough value in that product that it's still worth the money. Not stomping their collective feet and saying that Google needs to be stopped.