Secondly, why should Micro$oft have been allowed to force the OEM's into negating their contract and dropping AOL software? AOL had made a contract with the OEM's directly to promote its product and M$ came in and was going to use its power to force them to drop it, unless AOL made a deal with M$ to push IE. Are you telling me that the OEM's and thrid parties cannot enter into contracts unless approved by Bill???
Did you know that at one time M$ forced OEMs to pay M$ a fee for the OS even if the OS was not installed or sold on a system, just because someone would install an OS, probably Windoze?
And lastly, I just love it when people pull out the old "your against capitalism" line when arguing against a company that behaves in a monoplistic and predatory way. Being a monopoly is not a crime per se, but acting like one is. And Micro$oft has been shown to act in such a way.