Perpetual Newbie voted 1 on this story.
Whoa, look at section 2 down there. Is Microsoft really admitting now to violating the Sherman antitrust act, when they have been publicly stating for the past (at least)six years that they have never violated the Sherman act or any other laws? From the gist of it, Microsoft's proposal looks like them admitting they did it and promising not to do that specific it again, without any remedies other than paying court costs. The similarity to Help Desk's recent strips is striking.
I think OEMs should be able to do whatever they want with Windows(short of warezing it) once they buy a copy, like any other product. However, Microsoft's position as the only seller of a useful GUI-enabled home consumer-oriented operating system for x86 processors allowed them to discriminate in who they sold to, by threatening to refuse to sell to anyone that wouldn't follow their rules. In my opinion, this was the most major source of Microsoft's power. A proper remedy would disallow Microsoft from discriminating in who they sell to and bar them from entering into any exlusive contracts.
Furthermore, I think they should be required to offer a "just a copy" version of all operating system products that is the same CD without the piece of paper, at no more than twice the cost of their least expensive licensed version of the same product. They should also be forced to release all internal documentation(including the comments of source code files) for all programming interfaces to all versions of Windows 95, 98, Millenium, NT4, and 2000 systems, including interfaces to seperate products that Microsoft has claimed are part of the operating system either explicitly or implicitly by including the program in a bugfix patch("service pack").