I thought it only did not allow other browsers to do JIT compiling, whereas Apple is the one who does not allow competing browsers at all on ARM (iOS).

> it only did not allow other browsers to do JIT compiling

Effectively preventing competitors from building accepctable JavaScript-enabled browsers. It's not that you can't make a winrt browser. It's that it'll suck.

Apple doesn't allow anything other than their provided Webkit rendering engine for interpreting websites, in extension to not allowing any third party interpreters in general. They do now allow others to repackage Webkit into their browser apps, which Google has done with Chrome - albeit like with Win8@ARM they can't do JIT then. So it's not all that different actually, the outcome for the user is about the same.

What Windows ARM browsers are there as alternative anyway?

Well, i'm not aware of it existing on 'windows rt' (no one has it for starters), but firefox works on both linux ARM and windows x86, so i'm sure that could be ported without too much trouble.

If it won't Microsoft will pay a fine again to the EU.

Microsoft was deemed to have a monopoly in "Intel-compatible PC operating systems". An ARM tablet is not in this market; Microsoft has no monopoly in this market; Microsoft cannot be fined for abusing monopoly power in this market as it does not have monopoly power. They are free as Apple or Android to allow or disallow software on that platform.

IANAL.

If they use the popularity of Windows to gain share on ARM, they are effectively abusing their "Intel-compatible PC operating systems" one.

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.

> 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.

I don't see how your two examples show leverage of the Intel PC monopoly.

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.

Nope.