Actually they can't do anything they want - are you familiar with the Sherman Act in the US? If not you should read up on it
Good point on the anti trust issue.
So being on vacation and a little bored I did some reading. I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, although I did meet one once. and I have had my fair share of legal dealings in commerce and service industry issues. But, I am not in any way a legal expert to bare with me.
As I see it there are a couple of issues that line up here. All of them can be acceptable.
1- A brand or owner is allowed to limit sales of their product to authorized dealers, retailers or brand stores only, and subsequently able to take action should a non authorized retailer without a trade agreement is commercially selling their parts.
2- They can restrict service IF the Brand doesn't say you cannot take the watch to a watchmaker of choice, nor is it saying you cannot service it yourself, what it may say is "we recommend service is only done by XXX Brand authorized service center in order to ensure the appropriate original parts and procedures are followed etc" language that is already part of most literature for most brands
3- The watch will and can work with the non original parts i.e (you can choose not to follow their suggestion and get a different screw for your bracelet and it will work fine, it will just not be the original one.
Also by itself their practice is not necessarily a monopoly since we're only talking one brand (with Rolex) a monopoly may apply more to SWATCH group if all the brands they represent had to be dependent on each other and restrict other competitor's brands from actively being sold or maintained. But even this is not the case because no matter what Rolex policy may be it does not affect what Seiko, Casio, Omega or any other brand may do or not do and their performance on the market. Now If Rolex somehow was the only authorized importer of, say, bracelet screws and did not provide fair access to other brands then it may have a monopoly or trust forming.
Their practice also does not limit the ability of third party (independent watchmakers) to perform their jobs or have a successful business, it only limits their ability to work on the specific brand watch with specific original parts that are not for sale. As such the watchmaker can still work on the watch if they want, but he or she will not have the original parts to service that specific brand. However they are not in any way limiting the access to other brands parts or service agreements so again they are not monopolizing the market.
Monopoly as applied to trade is:
DEFINITION of 'Monopoly'
A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the
market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition, which often results in high prices and inferior products.
According to a strict academic definition, a monopoly is a market containing a single firm. In such instances where a single firm holds monopoly power, the company will typically be forced to
divest its
assets. Antimonopoly regulation protects free markets from being dominated by a single entity.
As applicable to the Sherman act:
- Sherman Antitrust Act. A federal anti-monopoly and anti-trust statute, passed in 1890 as 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7 and amended by the Clayton Act in 1914 (15 U.S.C. § 12-27), which prohibits activities that restrict interstate commerce and competition in the marketplace.
and in more general terms:
the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.
"his likely motive was to protect his regional
monopoly on furs"
To note neither of this definitions is applicable,
1- Rolex or Omega is not limiting the market, neither does it own a majority of the market, and there certainly no absence of competition. They are limiting only the supply of their product and their product only to third parties.
2- No activity described here "Prohibits" activities or restricts interestate commerce or competition, if anything, given the amount of people that are willing to forego buying from them because of their restrictive practices it would promote competition and commerce of other brands
3- There is no exclusive possession or control of the supply of a trade in watches or watchmakers...solely on a specific brand. In other words, if they come out with a way where an independent watchmaker cannot service any watch of any brand without going through them or working fir them then there would be an issue.
So in an on itself the legal paradigm is not clear. Watchmakers are being affected, but only on the specific brands that take this steps and not on a trade or specific market on a whole. Costumers retain their choice of service and maintenance but are restricted to go through one channel only in order to get the original parts that are not accessible elsewhere, however that can buy another brand on the open market instead or chose to supply with aftermarket parts.
Please, I am just theorizing here, don't anyone all of a sudden get the idea that I am making a case either way or that I prefer one thing over the other, I am just taking the less obvious side for analysis sake.
