I looked all through the decree and didn't see an expiration date on it. How long ago it was is not relevant.
The current contract doesn't charge per-processor fees. It merely establishes that Dell needs to ship an OS -- any OS -- on its boxes.
Of course, considering how hard Microsoft has worked to stop OEMs like Dell from shipping Linux on any platform (and succeeded with Dell laptops and desktops) means that the obvious goal is for OEM's to ship PCs with any OS, as long as it comes from Microsoft.
Section IV, paragraph G. states that Microsoft revenue can only come from a per-copy or per-system license. There are no exceptions for Microsoft to charge for systems with no license. In fact, it is prohibited in several of the other sections. For Microsoft to use it's licenses to force any company to ship Microsoft products that it doesn't want violates the subparagraphs of paragraph G.
And they've complied with it.
The US Government, as early as 1997, disagrees. The DOJ filed a petition in US District Court requiring Microsoft to show cause why they should not be found in civil contempt for violating the decree. Microsoft later settled by promising not to do it again, the result of that promise is why Microsoft has been found to be a monopoly by the court and we are now waiting for the penalty.
Currently in the bullpen, awaiting the outcome of the current anti-trust trial, are numerous lawsuits all based on Microsoft's violation of that decree.
Microsoft's own officials have issued memos stating that they have no intention of complying with the decree. And they haven't.
Microsoft's attempt to stop shipping PCs sans OS plus Microsoft's continuing harrasment of OEMs to drop other operating systems adds up to only one thing.
Trying to spin this off as an "anti-piracy" campaign won't work, given Microsoft's track record with obeying the law and the evidence from their own officers memos.