This is seriously off-topic.
I've always had trouble with that line of reasoning, and it has lead to a number of situations where Microsoft has had to disappoint users while simultaneously having to kowtow to competitors.
Microsoft developed the COM model to make reusing binary components easier from within other applications. The HTML rendering component (mshtml.dll) was included in Windows not only to provide support for Internet activities (iexplore.exe, which is simply a top-level window to host the HTML component), but also to provide developers with a useful component for rendering HTML, then an emerging method for formatting test. Not being familiar with the details of the anti-trust case, my next point is merely conjecture: as long as Microsoft did not knowingly prevent the installation of other browsers, I still don't see how distributing the iexplore.exe executable could be considered abuse of a monopoly position. Besides, the interfaces supported by the HTML COM component were documented, so it was even conceivable that someone could create a drop-in replacement for the one provided by Microsoft.
While the monopoly abuse can has long been decided, the ramifications are still being felt. Microsoft has always has a huge focus on developers (see Ballmer's: DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS! speech on YouTube). My understanding -- and this could be wrong, it's a hazy recollection -- was that Microsoft would have liked long ago to release a free compiler for Windows but was prevented from doing so due to the possibility of being anti-competitive. Yes, they have the Visual Studio Express Edition now, but it could have been released years ago. In addition, each new release of Visual Studio Professional brings with it hopes for improved GUI components, hopes that are dashed each time. Why? MS can't release component packs because they would be anti-competitive with other component providers. Ten years ago Borland C++ Builder had so many built-in components (Delphi Visual Component Library) that it made developing apps a breeze. Visual Studio, by comparison, gives you bear skins and stone knives. So, for the sake of competition, I have to not only buy Visual Studio for thousands of dollars, but then I have to go and spend more money on third-party components just to make an application that follows the Windows UI guidelines.
It seems distinctly unfair that a company that wants to provide things its customers want is unable to.