Tavish wrote:Snakes Gould wrote:a definition of collusion:
collusion takes place within an industry when rival companies cooperate for their mutual benefit.
So you consider every single trade to be collusion because that defines a trade perfectly?
Trade does fall under the broad definition of collusion. After the Sherman Antitrust Act had been passed, the Supreme Court had to figure out how to deal with businesses doing things, since even a buy contract is technically the, "restraint of trade" that the Sherman Act outlawed. They decided in the Standard Oil case to thread the needle by inserting into the statute the word, "unreasonable" in front of, "restraint of trade": http://encarta.msn.com/sidebar_76159404 ... trust.html
So Snakes definition is technically correct for the broad version of collusion. It's just not one that anyone goes after.