Then why hasn't Smith & Wesson suffered for it? They have striker-fired pistols with and without manual safeties. In other words, Smith & Wesson can say their manual safetyless striker-fired pistols are safe despite also offering ones with manual safeties, so how is this different? In my opinion it is not, so I can't see how the point is valid. Now from a marketing standpoint I can see Glock making a choice to view it this way, but that's a different matter. Still, given where we are at with Smith & Wesson and others offering a competitive advantage by offering a choice, I don't believe that is likely the case either (not in the 21st Century).Yes, Glock has made manual safeties, but upon request. I am not saying it is right, but Glock has to be able to say their trigger is safe. Period. While we can agree it is, a jury may NOT feel one without a physically activated block is safe (we even have gun owners who say that, right?). It would be a stretch, but it also would pit Glock's historical stance with the question of why introduce a safety for a gun that doesn't need a safety (I want them to, I am just saying a lawyer and a jury might confuse the heck out of that scenario!).
Sorry, we already know it happens on a sweeping scale. These were not one or two banks or one or two television manufacturers that were caught. We're talking about many companies. Moreover, you have to consider what can be proven in court. If only six of a dozen manufacturers of a product are caught, that is not to say others were not involved. More importantly a systemwide oligopoly also makes sense for two reasons. First, why would manufacturers want to risk going out of business because someone comes out with a better product that drastically cuts sales for everyone else? I was a director within a Fortune 500 consumer electronics company many years ago, and I can tell you the same patterns emerged in my opinion in that industry as well to include virtually all manufacturers. Second, how could an oligopoly work when only a few companies engage in anti-competitive practices? It can't. The reason being that all of the other manufacturers not engaging in the oligopoly would be at an advantage. In fact, in my MBA textbook, they cryptically referred to tactics used by these businesses to get rid of competition that enters a particular market that would place the oligopoly at risk. The author specifically refrained from mentioning the methods specifically because you can use your imagination what people with a lot of money and power will do if all of the sudden someone builds a better product in the garage that puts all the other companies at risk. Oligopolies just can't exist when other companies share the market and are not bound by anti-competitive practices. This also means that there really are no truly free markets. Economists now use a political term to describe the market: "Imperfectly Competitive Markets".As for the oligopoly information, I don't think they could do it on a sweeping scale, but I also would be skeptical of it never happening. We can look at lysine and Archer Daniels Midland to see companies making silent agreements to prop up profitable segments of the market. It absolutely happens, and your theory may be on point.