What they were trying to do was considered anti-competitive practice, and "They built it therefore they can do whatever they want with it" in isolation makes absolutely no sense.
I also didn't say they could do "whatever they want". Could you please be a good faith conversationalist and reply only to what was actually said, as opposed to your misinterpretation of what was said?
> they built it therefore they should be able to choose how to distribute it
Tied selling is against the law. No matter who makes it, no matter if its free, if you make the acquisition of a product conditional on the acquisition of another one, it is illegal.