Quote:
|
John Sargeant’s statement that he made his decision alone in his basement on the treadmill is an argument that Macmillan’s pricing decisions were independent of any other publishers.
|
I just can't see how that can in any way be used as evidence against collusion. For all we know, the decision he made at that point could have been whether to go ahead with the price fixing agreement they've been discussing over the previous months or not.
Sure the final decision was his, it wouldn't make it any less non-collusive.
Not saying that's the case, but since it _could_ be the case just as equally as it could not, why should his statement be compelling evidence against collusion. There's no way to prove he's lieing or commiting purgory (if he gives the same statement in court) even if he really didn't think that, nobody can prove it, so why is it valid arguement against collusion?