I don't know if you can dismiss his entire argument because of his alleged "anti-foss" stance.
He is simply pointing out that in the light of a much, much larger than standard break-up fee someone in the deal (Motorola) must have concerns about it being approved. You don't tack on a 'ohhh and by the way if this doesn't go through you still owe us 2.5 billion' just for fun, and Google doesn't agree to it because they are such swell guys.
His remarks about using search to subsidize below/at-cost competition is a legitimate concern for a competitiveness perspective. It is one of the things that got Microsoft in trouble (http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/ms_tuncom/major/mtc-0002856...), specifically the part of leveraging cross-subsidies to avoid having to worry about financial success of an unrelated product (see: Android) and using said lack of concern to smother your competitors ability to make money/drive them out of business.
I personally don't know how this whole thing will play out, but I would strongly suspect Google's mobile channel partners (the ones licensing Android + paying Google a fee for use of their stack on said devices) are NOT thrilled with the idea that the one licensing them the technology has now become a possible competitor. They may say one thing in public, through their PR agents, but I strongly doubt any of them like this turn of events.
They (Google) seem to believe they will be able to do what few if any companies historically have been able to do. Buy a large, established business in an area they are not expert in then run it as an isolated entity within their larger organization. Sounds good on paper, doesn't tend to work out so cleanly in real life with all the complexities that arise. We shall see, assuming the deal goes through.