I simply can't think of the situation today as a browser war. In the late 90 there was the .com boom, making it feel like whoever wins the war will dominate the world, it was a more fuzzy world in terms of standards, so a lot of sites had to choose whether to make their site Netscape-friendly or IE-friendly, since it was almost impossible to do both. Add to that Microsoft strong-arm tactics and the existence of Netscape as a single-product commercial entity and you got a much messier, much dirtier war with higher stakes.
Today, the stakes are not that high. Most of the dirty fights are at the search and user details area. The standards are more strict and developers are fast to call on either side deviations. Lock-in is harder, and, to be honest, it's pretty obvious that whomever the "winner" will be, it won't give them the 99% dominance that IE had at about 2001.
Like refusing to sell windows to any retailer (white or grey box) who installed Netscape on their machines?
To clarify: at that time, IE was a separate programme an MS instructed vendors that they must include IE, including a desktop icon, and must not include Netscape
Integration of the browser with the OS, down to the API level. Forcing OEMs not to pre-install Netscape on Windows machines they sell. Releasing their own Java VM on IE (for which they were sued by Sun). Creating JScript, a JavaScript implementation not compatible with Netscape's. Just search for "microsoft antitrust case" for more details.
But these are only dirty tricks in the context of a monopoly. If they weren't a monopoly (which they were), it's just smart business. See Apple and Android today (Apple won't let AT&T put random AT&T software on the device. Android has blooked 3rd party competitive apps, like Skyhook, from being packaged with Android phones).
The toughest part about being a monopoly is that the regulatory agencies won't give you any guidance on what is "over the line" (Microsoft at one point went to the EU to ask if they did X, would that be legal. The EU said that they won't tell them. Try it and you'll find out.) You just have to do stuff and see if you get sued or not.
The whole system of a corporation owing only to its shareholders demands this "do stuff and see if you get sued" mentality. The Mozilla foundation, being a non-profit doesn't need to bully anyone into submission. But that's besides the point, as I think today whatever race there is to browser dominance is not driven by the notion that "win the war, win the market", but by a more sensible notion, and therefore I hesitate before I call the situation today a "Browser War".
