The flow went like this: I suggested that this was not illegal or immoral, so not deserving of prison time. You suggested that the OP meant that the laws are wrong. I said that they're not wrong, nor would any changes to them that incarcerated executives for anti-competitive practices likely ever be put into law. You suggested the DOJ disagreed with me, as do most people.
I don't think I'm being obtuse, but perhaps I just have a very different perspective on this.
> You suggested the DOJ disagreed with me, as do most people.
As evidenced by the fact that there was an investigation.
The OP was discussing the criminal liability of corporations and their officers. That's a huge difference.
The penalties for violating the Sherman Act can be severe. Although most enforcement actions are civil, the Sherman Act is also a criminal law, and individuals and businesses that violate it may be prosecuted by the Department of Justice. Criminal prosecutions are typically limited to intentional and clear violations such as when competitors fix prices or rig bids. The Sherman Act imposes criminal penalties of up to $100 million for a corporation and $1 million for an individual, along with up to 10 years in prison.
Anyway, the other poster was correct. If they don't go to prison over this, the laws are wrong ;) And yes, of course I'm aware that they won't. That's exactly what I was lamenting.
I'll just note that antitrust law is rather controversial, and is often enforced on purely political grounds. You'll recall Microsoft's (non) punishment after the last Republican administration was elected, for example.
This does not change that pretty much everyone here but you thinks this was a bunch of crooked shit.
I do think the visible reaction is fascinating given this is a site dedicated to growing businesses that almost certainly will conduct such practices (completely legally, too).