3 ms·
Isn't that commonly called anti-competitive practices?
by RobotToaster 5mo ago
Isn't that commonly called anti-competitive practices?
- momoschili 5mo agoyes, but it has been given the blessing by the western governments.
- CGMthrowaway 5mo agoIt would fall under the category of exclusive dealing.(1) Exclusive dealing is never per se illegal, but it can be as a matter of judgment before a court. ASML would argue that it's legitimately justified because a) there is mutual coinvestment (ASML owns 25% of Zeiss semi optics division) and thus there is symbiosis / shared risk not a simple exclusionary supply contract b) no viable alternative customers exist for Zeiss so it doesn't matter c) EUV litho is so tightly coupled to optics that having a single supplier is a technical necessity d) the market was CREATED through innovation and investment across ASML and suppliers, rather than exclusionary conduct (cf. the difference between "a monopoly" and "monopolization") The affordance of a monopoly also prevents free riding. ASML and Zeiss spent billions of dollars and decades co-developing very specific, custom-tailored technology. If a competitor could simply walk up to Zeiss and buy the lenses that ASML spent billions helping to develop, the competitor would be free riding on ASML's investment - and creating a chilling effect for future innovation. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_dealing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_dealing
- phkahler 5mo agob) no viable alternative customers exist for Zeiss so it doesn't matter c) EUV litho is so tightly coupled to optics that having a single supplier is a technical necessity B can also be an argument against putting exclusivity into a contract. C is just a business decision - exclusivity due to need, not contract.