Apparently it's never dawned on you how hard it's getting for US software shops to make a buck when all the socialists are releasing their software for free. I use two US products myself, though, and will continue to do so, since they obviously do exist, despite your attempts to claim they don't.
You're confusing things. Adaware personal edition is free as in no-cost, not free as in open source. It is completely closed and proprietary. They make money by selling more advanced versions. The OpenOffice you hate was also started by foreigners at no cost for personal use (although not open source). It took an American company to make it open source.
Giving away a low-end free product as a teaser is common in capitalism. ZoneAlarm got quite successful this way.
It seems that in many areas, open-source software is very equal to, if not at times superior to their closed-source counterparts (e.g. Firefox vs. IE, OpenOffice vs. Microsoft Office). With open-source software, there are also fewer problems that sit for extended periods of time--hundreds, if not thousands, of people can fix the bug, write a patch, or provide a workaround should problems arise.
Plus, closed-source software makers in the U.S. are also charging way too much--hundreds of dollars for software where oftentimes decent (or near-perfect) substitutes exist at a much lower cost--often for free.
It's the same reason why Autodesk, Microsoft, Adobe, et al. have had problems with pirated software in recent years. People are simply refusing to pay out the rear end for software. And when they can't find a suitable alternative in the OSS community, that's when pirated software and file-sharing become rampant.
I'm not condoning piracy--it is illegal. What I'm saying is that maybe if software wasn't so overpriced, there'd be less of a tendency for people to seek alternatives to paying for software (be it piracy or OSS substitute). If Closed-Source vendor ABC Corp; puts out a software suite for $200 and an Open-Source XYZ Foundation creates a similar suite for free that does virtually everything ABC's product does, then why would people pay $200 for ABC's product?
Or, let me simplify it: If I have a choice between buying ABC's product for $200 or the clone for free, and assuming the products are virtually identical, which one do I pick?
It's a no-brainer. I pick the lower-cost one.
Finally, and having said all this, your diatribe doesn't make any sense at all.