That's a red herring. Google could easily have asked them to desist from this policy while the acquisition was closing. Executives at Motorola know who their new boss is going to be and are acting accordingly.
Do you have anything to back that up? (especially the assertion that they "are acting accordingly").
My last look at the agreement[1] the last time this came up did not come across a provision for that sort of thing (especially before it was even approved by the justice department), but it's been a while. In the meantime, Motorola's board certainly can and will act as the want, good ideas be damned.
I don't need data to back up a commonly held observation - people are influenced by those who they have to answer to. Are you really disputing that?
As for the idea that they can and will act as they want - that's obviously not true. For example, what if they decided to sue the other Android licensees as they threatened to do before the acquisition?
Do you think the person who decided to do that would have a great future once the acquisition was completed?
> defensively protecting themselves
Not everyone agrees with your point of view, to say the least:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/02/after-apple-microsoft-als... http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/03/eu-opens-two-antitrust...