The Sherman Act was introduced in 1890 to prevent such practices and states in part:
Keep Prices and Quality in Check
"The Sherman Act outlaws all contracts, combinations, and conspiracies that unreasonably restrain interstate and foreign trade. This includes agreements among competitors to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate customers. The Sherman Act also makes it a crime to monopolize any part of interstate commerce. An unlawful monopoly exist when only one firm controls the market for a product or service, and it has obtained that market power, not because is product or service is superior to others, but by suppressing competition with anticompetitive conduct".
The Clayton Antitrust Act was introduced in 1914, to prevent
anticompetitive practices in their incipiency states in part:
"In United States law. Certain tying arrangements are illegal in the United States under both the Sherman Antitrust Act, and Section 3 of the Clayton Act. A tying arrangement is defined as "an agreement by a party to sell one product but only on the condition that the buyer also purchases a different (or tied) product,..."
Monopoly, Anti Competition Refusal to Supply.
The watch servicing market is provided to consumers solely by:
Independent Watchmakers and the Brands.
Test as to independent watchmakers technical ability.
It is a common denominator requirement, tied to the availability of parts, by the majority of brands, however:
Watchmaker Act did authorize a test of watchmakers ability until 1952. Until the following nine Supreme States court ruled about it and stated in part:
"Watchmaking Act is void in that it deprives defendant of inherent rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the State and Federal Constitutions, in numerous particulars, to wit: That it seek to deprive him of is right to liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of his own industry; to deprive his of his property without due process of law, and deprive him of his right to earn a livelihood in a legitimate field of business that of watchmaking and his right to contract in matter in matter of purely private concern; that it violates the Bill of Rights of the Federal Constitution and seek to create a monopoly of business of watchmaking; that it grant to a certain class of citizens certain exclusive rights privileges and immunities, to the exclusion of others".
"There is no more excuse for requiring a watchmaker to pass test as to his technical qualification than for requiring a photographer to pass such a test.
The judgment of the trial is affirmed" State V. Wood 207 Okla."