Unless I'm misreading something, this has prompted the competition to work with a different material (some kind of fiberglass). So even though the competition can't use the same material they have an alternative that is cheaper and readily available. I don't see the problem.
As a mental exercise, consider the thought process behind the perspective that this is "anti-competitive".
1. Apple has taken a technology- metal milling- that has existed for at least half a century, and used it to make a nicer laptop case.
2. Apple uses the modern manufacturing method to do this, requiring expensive CNC machines.
3. Apple introduced popular products that, when you open them, look like they were hand crafted by master metalworkers in the 1940s (I'm serious!) while their competition is still shipping cheap plastic cases.
4. Even though there are dozens of suppliers of CNC Mills of all type, Apple's requirements contain the market for a particular type (this is speculation on my, and the articles part.)
5. Therefore, this is "anti-competitive" because Apple's competition can't just copy the unibody case idea and order machines and make their own unibody cases?
6. So, what could possibly be the remedy? To fine Apple for being successful with an innovative new case design? To institute some government board of allocation to allocate the (currently, and only temporarily) limited supply of CNC machines?
If Apple hadn't been competitive-- that is, if Apple hadn't innovated and come up with a new case design-- there would be no demand for these machines from non-Apple people. So, this is a result of competition on Apple's part.
Sometimes I imagine that people think that if Apple is successful by doing something better, that this is "unfair" and that Apple should be punished.
Hell, I wish I could make a crapy video editor and then force Apple to give me some of their final cut profits, because, really, it is so unfair that apple makes such a good video editor, I'm just one guy and I can't hope to compete with that, right? (Just kidding, forcing Apple to do that is aggression, and is immoral. I'm just being illustrative. While I've thought about making a video editing app, I've not done that, actually.)
I don't think the article is suggesting that this activity is anticompetitive... I think, rather, it's being held up as an example of the genius of Tim Cook and Apple's lesser-appreciated operational excellence.
