Question

Passage:
Prior to the unified imperial patent law of 1877, individual German states maintained disparate intellectual property regimes, with Prussia enforcing rigorous novel-inventiveness standards while southern states granted patents based primarily on local utility. Economists historically argued that this regulatory fragmentation inhibited nationwide technological integration, particularly in the burgeoning railway sector. However, recent archival evidence reveals that major locomotive manufacturers strategically exploited these jurisdictional disparities. By securing broad utility patents in southern territories for incremental mechanical modifications rejected by Prussian examiners, manufacturers established regional supply monopolies. Concurrently, to bypass Prussian patent blockades on core engine designs, these same firms established subsidiary foundries within Prussian borders, leveraging a loophole that exempted locally produced components from extraterritorial infringement claims. Consequently, despite Prussia’s strict patent enforcement intended to protect domestic innovation, Prussian rail networks came to depend heavily on technical components manufactured by southern-based firms operating through these local subsidiaries. Furthermore, when Prussia eventually attempted to enforce tariffs on imported sub-assemblies to shield its native foundries, southern states retaliated by restricting Prussian coal shipments, forcing Prussian authorities to grant regulatory waivers to southern-owned subsidiaries.

Based on the passage, evaluate the following statement:
Prussia's implementation of tariffs aimed at shielding domestic foundries directly resulted in retaliatory measures that compelled Prussian authorities to grant regulatory concessions to southern-owned firms.