Back when I was a PFY, the way to buy a PC without Windows was to buy the components and bolt them together yourself. There was progress over the years, with some small distributors selling blank pre-assembled machines, but if you had the technical skill to understand the value and find the distributor then you had the skill to assemble a PC. The full details of the deal between the big PC distributors and Microsoft is secret. It could have included 100% Windows bundling or else, but a simpler explanation was the hardware+windows was sold below cost, the difference was made up with crapware and the profit came from the commission on MS Office - neither of which were available for Linux.
That was less true with laptops. The EOMs paid for Windows on all laptops. It was just about possible to buy a laptop without Windows, but the EOM, distributor and customer all paid for an unused Windows License. This caused seething hatred from Penguinistas - easily 10milliTrumps. The first mainstream Linux small cheap computers arrived at CeBIT, and on the first day they were packed up and taken away without explanation. The popular assumption at the time was that Microsoft threatened the manufacturer with expensive Windows licenses. (The standard anti-trust dodge was a price hike for all, and "marketing support" for "qualifying partners").
It is remotely possible that you are technically correct about PCs, but there is no way you will ever convince grey beards that Microsoft could not at one time effectively insist on Windows Tax on all laptops. The deals are still secret, but a more modern version probably involves software patents (spit) that are just as valid as SCO's claims, but are the cost of getting Windows for the same price that competitors pay.
After years of farting about, the EU did get Microsoft to offer (defective expensive) documentation for SMB. They did get Microsoft to add a browser selection dialog box (but no refund if you did not pick IE). There were some hefty fines, which either reduced taxes or increased budgets in the EU (probably a bit of both). Changes in the computer industry did not come from EU court decisions. A competitive product became available before the courts got half way to a verdict (and the sentences were either irrelevant or ignored for years).
Phone manufacturers are well aware that an EU judgement + enforcement would take at least a decade and would be meaningless five years before anything happened. If Samsung had a problem with Android, they would sell Tizen phones. The other big manufacturers have something similar and the smaller ones could license Tizen. The EU are welcome to investigate, and perhaps they will find something that eventually provides some financial benefit to EU tax payers. Don't hold your breathe.