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.