I think you (and some others) are missing the point.
It's not about bundling a browser (which Apple, Ubuntu and others also do) but about making that browser an integral part of the OS that cannot be removed without disabling OS functionality.
In the old days you bought an OS and installed web browsers (if required) separately - they were additional pieces of software that sometimes had to be paid for. Netscape was the dominant one.
As internet access became popular browsers became free, and IE was bundled with the OS. Neither of the main players were much concerned with adhering to standards, each introducing proprietary tags.
I well remember having to write two versions of my HTML to accommodate them, and elsewhere the web was full of notices saying "this site is best viewed in Internet Explorer" (or Netscape). It was hopeless, and the obvious answer was browsers that adhered to common standards (which already existed).
The main reason that IE won in the "browser wars" was its (technically unnecessary) integration into the OS, and Microsoft subsequently lost an antitrust case which found it had abused its monopoly to eliminate competition. But Netscape also scored some spectacular own-goals in version 4, which contributed to their demise, so the legal victory was Phyrric at best.
Having achieved market dominance Microsoft released IE6, a dreadful non-standards browser that was left to stagnate for many years while Opera, Firefox and others adopted the long-published standards (which benefit us all) and also brought in many popular innovations. But they felt the market was unfairly stacked against them, potentially in violation of the laws on monopoly practices.
That is where this case begins. Opera lobbied for it, Mozilla got on board, and now Google want in.
I don't disagree, but it should be seen in context.
I am happy to accept corrections to the simplified and hastily written outline above.