[tankenmate]

1. Product tying, especially if there are threats w.r.t. Windows Licenses, is illegal if you are a monopoly.

2. The choice of the Nook OS does affect their profitability, cost control is the primary way a company can gain price flexibility / increase margins. Using Android means no license fees, no restrictions on how you implement it (apart from those you impose on yourself and / or technical limitations). B&N will probably have a large sunk cost on research, development, and operations by going with Android; doubling or more of that sunk cost because of a "bully" will put the back up on more than one or two execs. B&N are probably feeling they are at the point that it might be cheaper to litigate, or they feel that this might be a bet the company moment.

3. If you are going to take a punt on some anti-trust action you don't instruct teams like Cravath; you go to them if you feel you have a good chance to prevail or have more money than sense; B&N at first blush don't strike me as the second.

[brudgers]

>"Using Android means no license fees, no restrictions on how you implement it (apart from those you impose on yourself and / or technical limitations)."

[IANAL]

If Microsoft's patents are not infringed or they are invalid, that is correct.

However, the former does not appear to be part of B&N's argument, while the latter is obviously subject to debate at this time.

Therefore, it appears to be premature to assume that this premise of your argument is well supported from a legal standpoint.