Should Vendors Compete with their Customers?

OK. I'm only a sales rep in this industry, so clinical topics will not be our specialty here, at least when it's authored by me (actually, that would be a great topic itself - should a clinical background be mandatory for a sales rep). But there are so many other controversial issues in neuromonitoring, I'm sure we will keep it hopping in the Neuromonitoring Lounge.

To kick this off, I want to pose the question: "Should Vendors (ever) Compete with their Customers?"

Vendors spend a great deal of time with manufacturers, administrators, department managers, service company owners, technologists, doctors, everyone that is involved in the industry. They obviously learn a ton from these resources. Sure, they get some clinical training, but because of the diverse skill sets of those with whom they interact, they learn all aspects of the business.

Some reps work hard to become a billing "expert" that can consult those who may be considering starting their own service. These reps learn not only the business aspects of neuromonitoring, but where the contracts are, when they expire, where staffing issues exist, etc. This knowledge is gained from their customers who are existing service providers (either in-house or contract). It is then offered to a potential competitor in effort to facilitate a sale! Is this right? Is it unethical?

Well how about the rep that decides to be the "business person" and partners with or starts his/her own IOM company? Is this right? Is it unethical?

A capitalist might argue that we let competition thrive, and that everyone has the right to compete for IOM business. But it sure gets close to the ethical boundaries, considering how the knowledge was gained. Is this different from any other industry where, say, a young developer hones his/her skills at Microsoft then ventures out to start a dot com?

What do you think?