Changes

Under the rule of reason standard, the plaintiff must prove that:

Under the rule of reason standard, the plaintiff must prove that:

*(1) that the defendants contracted, combined, or conspired;  

*(1) that the defendants contracted, combined, or conspired;  

*(2) that the scheme produced anticompetitive effects;  

*(2) that the scheme produced anti-competitive effects;  

*(3) that the restraint affected relevant product and geographic markets;  

*(3) that the restraint affected relevant product and geographic markets;  

*(4) that the object of the scheme and the conduct resulting from it was illegal; and  

*(4) that the object of the scheme and the conduct resulting from it was illegal; and  

":The true test of legality is whether the restraint imposed is such as merely regulates and perhaps thereby promotes competition or whether it is such as may suppress or even destroy competition. To determine that question the court must ordinarily consider the facts peculiar to the business to which the restraint is applied; its condition before and after the restraint is imposed; the nature of the restraint and its effect, actual or probable. The history of the restraint, the evil believed to exist, the reason for adopting the particular remedy, the purpose or end sought to be attained, are all relevant facts. This is not because a good intention will save an otherwise objectionable regulation or the reverse; but because knowledge of intent may help the court to interpret facts and to predict consequences.”

":The true test of legality is whether the restraint imposed is such as merely regulates and perhaps thereby promotes competition or whether it is such as may suppress or even destroy competition. To determine that question the court must ordinarily consider the facts peculiar to the business to which the restraint is applied; its condition before and after the restraint is imposed; the nature of the restraint and its effect, actual or probable. The history of the restraint, the evil believed to exist, the reason for adopting the particular remedy, the purpose or end sought to be attained, are all relevant facts. This is not because a good intention will save an otherwise objectionable regulation or the reverse; but because knowledge of intent may help the court to interpret facts and to predict consequences.”

''See also Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.'', 551 U.S. 877, 885-887 (2007); ''Am. Needle, Inc. v. NFL'', 130 S. Ct. 2201, 2217 (2010).

''See also [[Leegin Creative Leather Prods. v. PSKS, Inc.]]'', 551 U.S. 877, 885-887 (2007); ''Am. Needle, Inc. v. NFL'', 130 S. Ct. 2201, 2217 (2010).

"Under this rule, the factfinder weighs all of the circumstances of a case in deciding whether a restrictive practice should be prohibited as imposing an unreason-able restraint on competition."<ref>''Continental T. V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc.'', 433 U.S. 36, 49 (1977)</ref> Appropriate factors to take into account include "specific information about the relevant business" and "the restraint's history, nature, and effect." <ref>''State Oil Co. v. Khan'', 522 U.S. 3, 10 (1997)</ref>. Whether the businesses involved have market power is a further, significant consideration. <ref>''See, e.g., [[Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.]]'', 467 U.S. 752, 768 (1984) (equating the rule of reason with "an inquiry into market power and market structure designed to assess [a restraint's] actual effect")</ref> <ref>''See also Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc.'', 547 U.S. 28, 45-46 (2006).</ref> In its design and function the rule distinguishes between restraints with anticompetitive effect that are harmful to the consumer and restraints stimulating competition that are in the consumer's best interest.

"Under this rule, the factfinder weighs all of the circumstances of a case in deciding whether a restrictive practice should be prohibited as imposing an unreason-able restraint on competition."<ref>''Continental T. V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc.'', 433 U.S. 36, 49 (1977)</ref> Appropriate factors to take into account include "specific information about the relevant business" and "the restraint's history, nature, and effect." <ref>''[[State Oil Co. v. Khan]]'', 522 U.S. 3, 10 (1997)</ref>. Whether the businesses involved have market power is a further, significant consideration. <ref>''See, e.g., [[Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.]]'', 467 U.S. 752, 768 (1984) (equating the rule of reason with "an inquiry into market power and market structure designed to assess [a restraint's] actual effect")</ref> <ref>''See also Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc.'', 547 U.S. 28, 45-46 (2006).</ref> In its design and function the rule distinguishes between restraints with anticompetitive effect that are harmful to the consumer and restraints stimulating competition that are in the consumer's best interest.

In the [[Third Circuit]], a plaintiff must show under the "Rule of Reason" that:

In the [[Third Circuit]], a plaintiff must show under the "Rule of Reason" that: