[zepto]

Why didn’t you include the next paragraph?

You seem to be ignoring 130 years of law that happened since what you are quoting.

Courts quickly began struggling with the Sherman Act's broad and vague language, recognizing that interpreting it literally might make even simple business entities like partnerships illegal.[9] Federal judges began trying to develop legal principles for distinguishing between "naked" trade restraints between rivals that suppressed competition and other restraints that were only "ancillary" to other cooperation agreements that promoted competition.[9]

[cassianoleal]

Because, again, IANAL, and I don't really understand what that means. If the law is vague, so is this paragraph, at least to my unknowlegeable self. I am also not from the USA and have very little experience or awareness of their laws.

I assure you there was no malice.

[zepto]

That paragraph means that the law is not interpreted the way you are reading it.