Having a strong brand is not an abuse of monopoly power. That's ridiculous.
An abuse of their monopoly power would be something like denying Windows licenses to PC makers unless they agree to exclusively produce Windows 8 ARM tablets. There needs to be a leverage of the monopoly power in doing something anticompetitive for there to be an illegal act.
I'm pretty sure you can't say that so categorically. If you can distort the market (specifically: have a monopoly), then in principle any means you use to do so might be illegal. Using a brand might qualify - at least I'm not aware of any specific exceptions that would exclude them.
> Having a strong brand is not an abuse of monopoly power. That's ridiculous.
I was not speaking of brand, but OEM agreements. IIRC, if the OEM posts "X recommends Windows Y" on every product page, they get a better license price.
> ...would be something like denying Windows licenses to PC makers unless they agree to exclusively produce Windows 8 ARM tablets
Or differentiating their Android patent licenses according to the licensee's willingness to manufacture Windows Phone devices too. Or only licensing Windows 8 to ARM tablets that can never run anything else.
