Good points and examples here, since the article doesn't address these common types of scenarios at all. Some are less problematic, but others do present significant issues. Here's my take:

> Trademark restrictions to prevent importing what could be effectively the same textbook or wrist watch.

The case law on this is mixed. the Costco-Omega case [1] was a 4-4 decision that bears no precedential weight, and is from the 9th Circuit (this means it could be cited but is not binding on lower courts). It was decided in favor of Omega, which sought to prevent importation by Costco, notwithstanding the First Sale Doctrine (which generally says that after you buy a copyrighted article, you can do what you want with it). If this were a binding case from a high court, this would be bad. It is much less unfortunate because it is not binding, and because a subsequent case from a higher court went differently.

The textbook case (Kirtsaeng-Wiley) went the other way, and allowed importation [2]. This was a US Supreme Court case and was decided by a majority. So on balance, the law on this seems to impair the effectiveness of price discrimination, which is good for the consumer. This case did not overrule the Omega case, which was factually distinguishable, so this doesn't mean that there aren't still potential issues lurking.

> DVD region locking where you can sell practically an identical product but charge vastly different rates in different areas, and it's illegal to work around.

DVD region locking, and especially the DMCA overlay, is definitely problematic. This applies equally to printer cartridge refills. The only potential benefit for consumers is that printer companies (and their analogs in other industries) can make printers less expensive, so that more people can afford them. If they couldn't lock you in to their ink cartridges, then they would have to charge more up-front. The counterargument to this is that many people don't understand the cost structure and end up locked in. Some printers even come with part-full cartridges, which is particularly deceptive.

> License agreements on software not to restrict specific functionality, but rather the usage scenarios.

This sort of thing can be done in "bad" ways, but it can also be done to offer academic discounts, discounts for small startups/businesses (think Slack's model). I'm not sure how one would draw the line between beneficial and nefarious applications of this model.

> Comcast's battle with Google Fibre where the price will heavily drop in just the areas where Google Fibre operates. Makes it much harder for Google Fibre to make any gains, but the vast majority of Comcast customers see no decrease in their bills.

Completely agree—this relates to there being a monopoly in many areas, which throws everything out of whack. Consumers definitely lose here, on the whole. (This is also why I wrote this article [3] about one way to hedge this problem.)

> Even the recent EpiPen drama...

This is mostly a problem because of the way health insurance presents a principal-agent problem. The person making the decision (insured) is not the person paying for them (insurance company). This definitely creates problems. It is arguably a good thing that medical device/drug companies can offer discounts to lower-income folks. On the whole, not sure how to weigh the pros/cons in the medical industry generally.

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_S.A._v._Costco_Wholesale...

2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirtsaeng_v._John_Wiley_%26_So...

3 https://medium.com/@nicklum/how-my-hatred-of-comcast-drove-m...