Synstar had alleged that ICL held a dominant position in the
market for software and hardware maintenance, which had enabled the
company to monopolise the provision of diagnostic services for the
maintenance of its own mainframe computers.
The OFT rejected this argument on the grounds that the
maintenance of computer hardware was not an isolated activity. It
was understood to be part of a process that began with the purchase
of a mainframe computer and was followed by the provision of
services for the upkeep of the computer.
This meant that ICL did not assume a dominant role in the
mainframe computer market as a whole. The fact that a consumer
purchasing one of the company’s computers would not be able to
employ the services of a rival company in order to maintain the
computer hardware did not mean that the benefits of competition
would be lost in the overall market.
