How can a product on its own cause anti-competitive damage?
To give an example. If CUDA wouldn't have been tied to Nvidia hardware, developers could use CUDA on any competing hardware. Being tied limits the choice. That's the essence of lock-in damage. Development tools should be development tools, not ways to control the market.
That's why there is value in something that breaks lock-in - that improves competition.
Initially I thought that AMD didn't offer a CUDA reimplementation out of NIH-syndrome (as it would be a marketing coup for NVIDIA), but then I saw that NVIDIA seem to be actively trying to shut-down independent attempts at running CUDA on non-NVIDIA hardware: https://www.techpowerup.com/319984/nvidia-cracks-down-on-cud...
Just do it. Fuck the lawyers. When you win, you toss some cash and they'll ya for it.
https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/sun-microsoft-settle...
It's been almost 25 years ago, but this was the crux of the Sun Microsystems v. Microsoft lawsuit. It's why OpenJDK exists. Even three years ago the Supreme Court ruled that you can't copyright an API.
I mean, it feels breathtakingly obvious. Not only is there historical precedents for just doing this, there're legal precedents as well.
When someone manages to overcome the cost and commoditize what lock-in was walling - it improves things. Even better if someone manages to do it while breaking lock-in itself. Sort of like writing a wrapper to run CUDA on non Nvidia GPUs (what ZLUDA is doing).