Sort of -- but basically no course is going to teach X and Y, if they're functionally equivalent ways to learn about Z, because almost no course is specifically about X or Y, it's about Z, and learning both X and Y isn't germane to learning Z, just learning one is enough.
As long as the companies behind X and Y both have a fair shot at sponsorship, this isn't really anti-competitive. It's literally a competition in which the companies compete for student and faculty attention.
Anti-competitive would be a company saying "you must teach X and not Y in your class about Z because you use Xco's mail services" or some other such abuse of one contractual relationship for an unrelated gain.
Re:AMD to buy Silo AI for $665M
by paulddraper on Thursday July 11, 2024 @12:55AM
(#40933780)
They say "hey if you want to teach a class using X, we'll sponsor it."
A competitor can complete for that sponsorship. So long as it's done on direct merit of the value, there's no problem.
Anti-competitive would be providing products or services and forcibly leveraging that into an unrelated contract.
it's usually the case where the sponsor is the sole sponsors (aka, the course does not teach both X and Y, esp. if X is given to the uni for free).
It's anti-competitive to allow companies to embed themselves in general courses, despite it not being so by the letter of the laws.