Well, the competitor did agree to sell the items to Amazon. Nobody forced them. They did it for economic benefit. So I don't understand the problem here.
Definitionally regulations are a divergence from an ideal free market. Provably, under some conditions (which don't exist in the real world) a market will converge to some definition of efficiency. Practically, no politician cares about this.
Politicians aren't trying to make the market more efficient with regulations -- good politicians are trying to protect their constituents, bad ones are mostly trying to protect their donors.
To pick one: trade secrets are not a monopoly. If you figure out the secret ingredient in Coca Cola (by legal means), you are free to use that knowledge and even publish it.
Similarly, I have my reservations about whether patents are a good idea; but I don't mind trademarks nearly as much.
The anti trust laws are designed to prevent monopolies and promote competition… as Amazon is acting as the market here and simultaneously fixing prices and discouraging competition with them thats a no-no
> Sellers then bore the risk of having their products not sell in a timely manner, or at all, while still paying Amazon for things like storage fees of their enrolled products