I would highlight the part "allegedly" and the fact that the article makes no reference to where they got that statement (while others have citations, for example the paragraph before).
I looked through the source and it makes no reference to a third type of contracted repair organization. Only Kodak's own and the ISO.
IMAGE TECHNICAL SERVICE, INC. v. EASTMAN KODAK CO. | Leagle.com.
Here's the extent to which Kodak did to prevent independent shops from competing with their service organization, none of which apply to Tesla. There is no evidence Tesla bans their parts suppliers from selling parts to others, from owners selling parts to repair shops, or from repair shops gaining access to used parts/cars. The reason why Kodak lost the suit is because they had a concerted effort to prevent independent shops from repairing their equipment at all levels.
"The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit's denial of Kodak's summary judgment motion reversing the district court. Justice Blackmun began by emphasizing some additional facts from the record that neither court below had relied on. Kodak did not make all of the parts that went into its equipment. It purchased parts from parts manufacturers. As part of Kodak's policy to a policy to limit sales of replacement parts for micrographic and copying machines only to buyers of Kodak equipment who use Kodak service or repair their own machines, Kodak sought to limit ISOs' access to other sources of Kodak parts besides Kodak itself, Kodak got manufacturers of its parts to agree with it that they would not sell parts that fit Kodak equipment to anyone other than Kodak. Kodak also pressured Kodak equipment owners and independent parts distributors not to sell Kodak parts to ISOs. In addition, Kodak took steps to restrict the availability to ISOs of used machines."
You keep saying they are violating the Sherman act, yet you don't provide evidence how doing those things you listed are a requirement of the Sherman act.
There is no general requirement in the Sherman act that requires you to make life easier for competitors by releasing all technical information about your parts such that third parties can make them. Try requesting that from Apple for example and you will be laughed off the face of the earth. Rather, if there is a sufficient market for such parts, third parties will reverse engineer and make their clones of such parts (provided they don't violate patents). Or if they are generic in the first place (as are many car parts), they will just substitute a similar alternative after figuring out what works.
This is not a general requirement of the Sherman Act, otherwise dealerships and franchise agreements will fail to exist. The whole ideal behind franchise agreements is that it allows manufacturers to control the sales of products/parts. For example, Manufacturers typically impose bans on known exporters of grey market vehicles via terms in their dealership agreement. To use the Apple analogy, Apple also restricts sales of certain parts only to certified technicians. None of this is a violation of the Sherman Act.
Where's the evidence Tesla doesn't do this (not that it is a requirement of the Sherman Act)? Unlike Kodak, they don't require you to sign any contract to buy a part from Tesla.
Where's the evidence that aftermarket manufacturers are banned by Tesla from building and refurbishing parts in Tesla vehicles? I know at least a few hobbyists (for example wk057, Jack Richards of EVTV) are already doing so. There are also some that are making a commercial business out of it (Ingineer for salvage vehicles, Tony Williams of Quick Charge Power for charging equipment, HCSharp for adapters, EVAnnex, TSportline, for accessories). Some are even stepping on patent issues (the adapters for example uses Tesla's patents for their socket design) but Tesla have not issued any C&Ds about it (the only one they did was for Jack Richards telling people to pretend to be in Massachusetts in order to access the service manuals).
The lack of third parties interested in aftermarket parts is simply because it is a niche/new manufacturer. This will naturally change when Tesla gets more popular.
