Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are implying that your opponent's knowledge of antitrust law is limited to a "nerdly" definition he has read on Wikipedia. Perhaps it was not your intention, but that's how it came off to me.
My argument isn't that such a definition of Sherman Act violations is "nerdly". It's that it's wrong. "Nerdly" is just color commentary. And, for what it's worth: it's from one nerd to another. Happy to clear that up for you.
In light of your recent rantings about "nerds"[1] and the law, it's hard to see your post as anything other than a continuation of your angry attacks on anyone who dares speak on the subject of the laws governing our hypothetically-democratic society. Your authoritarianism has degenerated into simple mockery. Even when you are right (which I think you largely are on this matter), you no longer contribute anything of use because any meaningful content is wrapped in an opaque blanket of anger and hostility.
[1] I do not consider myself a "nerd", by the way, nor do many other people that you probably seek to apply that label to. Some of us find it quite insulting. Call yourself whatever you want, but speak only for yourself.