That may be an over simplistic definition, but I think it pretty much spells out a free market. There is no perfect definition that really exists, because there are disagreements as to what exactly a free market is or even should be. Does it have controls, or does it operate completely devoid of controls? Should it contain warnings, or should it be caveat emptor? Should it be subjected to rigorous testing, or should it be limited to less stringent testing? These are just examples of the questions that are raised to determine what is a free market or even should be, and I'm sure it is not even close to being the complete list of what people view should be considered in a free market.
So to answer your question, no there has most likely never been a free market, only varying degrees of market freedom.
Maybe we should try to get closer to a free market. Historically, the free-er a market, the more prosperous the market.
It seemed your initial comment was denigrating free markets. Perhaps I was mistaken in that assumption.
I would also urge you to look further into this statement...
Where manipulation by the current winners to keep innovations from seeing the light of day, are not allowed to take place.
If the "manipulation" involves leveraging market advantages to create a better or cheaper end product than competitors, it is a positive for the market. If the "manipulation" involves the purchase of legal force (government) to use against competitors or customers then it is a negative force in the market.