I'm sorry, but no. That argument doesn't make any sense. Microsoft was forced into providing that nag screen simply because courts move slower than technology. Fighting against Internet Explorer was the tech world's bizarre attempt to show Redmond they couldn't push everyone (read Netscape) around. Somewhere along the way, someone got mad that they couldn't uninstall a piece of software which _they_ personally deemed to be unrelated to the underlying OS. Flash forward, and now companies have their entire business based solely around the browser. MS built Internet Explorer into the core of the operating system because they knew it was a big deal. Did you really have that much trouble downloading and installing another browser next to IE? Really?
Now, related to your arbitrary and questionable definition of a monopoly, are you actually telling us that in the old days there was no alternative to Windows (*cough* *cough* Macintosh)? There was "no choice"?? And you would also like us to believe that Apple doesn't own the tablet market today? Apple prides itself on having a completely closed ecosystem. If we follow their model of "don't allow applications which duplicate functionality", then IE should still be the only browser allowed on Windows machines...
The only reason they haven't been hit for anti-competitive practices is because their marketing department, including Jobs, have always made the company seem like the scrappy outsider. Google looked that way at one point as well. Apple's time will come. It's inevitable.