This is very clearly not the sunk cost fallacy. In this case, they are delaying making money (thanks to collusion + patents most likely) and they are still goi

This is very clearly not the sunk cost fallacy. In this case, they are delaying making money (thanks to collusion + patents most likely) and they are still going to recoup their currently 'sunk' costs. The sunk cost fallacy is continuing to put money into something explicitly because you're counting the previously sunk costs instead of justifying it by "the remainder to be spent < the expected return value." In this case, that's not the calculation that's being made at all. Anyway, still enjoyed your comment :)