One of the most frequent questions I see about the Microsoft antitrust case in the EU is why Microsoft should have to include competing products in Windows. Is poor Microsoft being hunted by the evil EU with its silly laws that ensure competition in a free market? …
The reason for bundling other browsers is of course that simply removing IE is most likely not a very effective remedy. Channel Register has a nice piece explaining why, and the same article shows how Microsoft's move was nothing but an attempt at manipulating the EC and public perception.
The fact is that having convicted monopolists bundle competing products is not something they came up with for the Microsoft case.
For example, in 2004, Coca Cola was forced to reserve 20% of the space in its coolers for competing products, if those coolers are the only ones in the store.
Regardless of whether you think forcing a convicted monopolist to bundle products from competitors is right or not, it is not a remedy exclusive to Microsoft. As such, it is not unfair to force Microsoft to do the same. What would be unfair is to give Microsoft special treatment compared to other convicted monopolists.
And let's not forget that Microsoft has been in trouble with the antitrust authorities in other countries as well, such as the United States and Korea.
The notion that the whole EU case is some kind of major conspiracy to bully poor little Microsoft gets sillier the more you look at the facts. I recommend everyone to look at the actual facts before forming an opinion on the matter.