It would be a lot simpler if anti-competitive behaviour only encompassed clearly immoral and unfair behaviour, but it tends to be more nuanced than that. There'

It would be a lot simpler if anti-competitive behaviour only encompassed clearly immoral and unfair behaviour, but it tends to be more nuanced than that. There's no simple rule and a court would probably have to spend a long time concidering such a case. The essential facilities doctrine might apply (the question isn't whether competitors are literally forbidden from the latest chips, it's whether they're "practically or reasonably" unable to access the latest chips, and all evidence suggests that's currently the case). Possibly it's the competitors own fault for refusing to pay the entirely reasonable price TSMC is insisting on, and perhaps Apple's contract with TSMC actually has carefully written clauses to ensure others could practically gain access without having to spend enormous amounts of money, but which nobody has been willing to use for their own reasons, but it certainly seems possible that the contracts effectively ensure Apple have sole access to the latest hardware, which would line up neatly with the apparent scenario we're in - that Apple currently has sole access to the latest hardware. That's not to say it's a slam dunk case either. I wouldn't care to guess either way.