There was nothing wrong with Microsoft's use of those agreements. They involved neither force nor fraud.
For that to happen, Microsoft would have had to lie to the PC makers or threaten them in some physical, non-economic way.
And by the way, the lawsuit you're talking about was made by Caldera (now known as SCO)! They bought the rights to a defunct OS just so they could sue Microsoft on bogus anti-trust charges. Oddly, there was no giant public outcry about this (like there is with the extremely similar SCO/Linux case right now). Hipocracy and short-sightedness, that.
(See this article at the Ayn Rand Institute for more information.)
And from #9362235:
This is absolutely false: you have made the terrible mistake of confusing economic and political power.
Microsoft does not have the ability to force you to use or pay for their products. Since the government has a legal monopoly on the use of force, they can force you to pay taxes.
I would suggest that you read Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal for a better understanding of how things should work.
What made my comments "Overrated"?