You may personally think vendor lock-in is a fair tactic but if you bother to do a little research you'll find some significant court decisions opposing that view (including the one against MS).
Still, I'm a little confused that you see no relationship between monopolies and licensing given that MS was convicted of abusing its monopoly to dictate licensing terms to OEMs.
I'm certainly not saying that Microsoft played entirely by the books. They clearly didn't. They went well beyond standard vendor lock-in. Things like lock-in that are considered fair game in a competitive market are not when a monopoly is involved.
I just don't think it's fair to blame proprietary software for Microsoft's sins.
Microsoft is not the only sinner, they are just the most publicized one. The profit made by Microsoft and the others in the Software Top 100 - http://www.softwaretop100.org/list.php?page=1 is probably several times higher than it would be if not for lock-in and other anti-competitive practices. Those unfair profits are effectively a hardware tax which transfer wealth away from the consumers and businesses who would have presumably spent it on their own interests.
Still, I'm a little confused that you see no relationship between monopolies and licensing given that MS was convicted of abusing its monopoly to dictate licensing terms to OEMs.