I say this because the practice has a number of names: intellectual monopoly capitalism, and regulatory capture. There are less polite names, too, naturally.
To understand why I say this, it is important to realise one thing: these people have already successfully invested in something when the risk was lower. They want to increase the risks to newcomers, to advantage themselves as incumbents. In that way, they can subordinate smaller companies who would otherwise have competed with them by trapping them under their license umbrella.
This happens a lot with pharmaceuticals: it is not expertise in the creation of new drugs or the running of clinical trials that defines the big pharmaceuticals companies, it is their access to enormous amounts of capital. This allows them to coordinate a network of companies who often do the real, innovative work, while ensuring that they can reap the rewards - namely, patents and the associated drug licenses.
The main difference of course is that pharmaceuticals are useful. That regime is inadequate, but it is at least not a negative to all of society. So far as I can see, AI will benefit nobody but its owners.
Mind you, I'd love to be wrong.