Hey guys... even though this is last week's news, it seems that many commenters have little idea of WHY they were being sued. I'll admit that this particular writeup is poorly worded, and the ones last week were more insightful.
But... MS wasn't sued for having expensive software. They were sued for telling the retailer what to sell Office for.
In an open market, MS sells Office to the retailer. They can have an MSRP (*Suggested* retail price), from which the retailer can sell it for more or less. If they choose less, then it appears to be "On sale" which makes people think they're getting a bargain (similar to how Kohl's has a 60% off everything sale all the time).
What MS did here is they agreed on the actual retail price. What the conversation probably went like was "Your (retailers) are going to sell this for $XXX, or else you won't sell it at all." With MS, you take it or leave it. And that's what they're in trouble for, breaking the meaning of an open market.
Notice that when you see the same product at different stores / estores for different prices. That's an open market, you can shop around. With MS, it appears that every retailer sells it for the same price. Here we have MS's product being sold at the same price at all the stores. That's not a coincidence.