Interesting, for two reasons:

1. It states that it was only in a beta release of Windows 3.1 and was removed for the final product. Is this really the basis of your argument here?

2. They clearly went about it in a deceptive way, but is what they were doing at the core wrong? Was Windows 3.1 considered an upgrade from MS-DOS? If so, I don't see how requiring users to have the base package is wrong, any more than Apple is unwilling to allow you to upgrade from Windows 95 to Snow Leopard. Maybe I'm not understanding the situation?

That's the exact opposite of banning competing products from working on Windows. They banned Windows from working.