I'm not a lawyer but I think what ultimately bit Microsoft was the fact that they were trying to contractually restrict OEMs from including alternatives (arguab

I'm not a lawyer but I think what ultimately bit Microsoft was the fact that they were trying to contractually restrict OEMs from including alternatives (arguably harming consumers) and trying to argue that IE was part​ of the OS when there was evidence it was not. Certainly the settlement remedies after appeal primarily seem to focus on not restricting OEMs from installing alternatives. Google lawyers have undoubtedly analysed the case with a fine toothed comb and would likely use the permissive open source licenses under which it provides Android and Chrome sources (and allows manufacturers to roll their own versions) to argue they don't restrict anyone.