Reviewing and demonstrating anti-competitive effects (usually through economic expertise); To consider whether the restriction is a mere limitation of prices or production (which is not related to another pro-competitive property) or whether it is incidental for other purposes; Putting behaviour into context through market analysis (relevant markets for products and geographic markets); Compensation for competitiveness-friendly effects; Compensation for the various effects on competition. See z.B., Todd v. Exxon Corporation, 275 F.3d 191, 198-200 (2nd Cir. 2001). Examples of horizontal behaviour tested according to the rule of reason are: – price agreements that effectively lead to a new product, such as. B of a flat-rate license. Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 441 U.S. 1, 23-24 (1979).
See also Addamax, 152 F.3d 48, 51-53 (1998) (achievement of a joint venture strictly next to the manufacture of a new product is evaluated according to the rule of reason). Restrictions on exits within sports leagues. NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85, 100-01 (1984). The simple exchange of price information. United States, 438 U.S. 422, 441 n. 16 (1978); Todd v. Exxon Corporation, 275 F.3d 191, 199 (2nd Cir. 2001).
Joint enterprise agreements. Palmer v. BRG of Georgia, 498 U.S. 46 (1990); Addamax, 152 F.3d 52; Cooperation guidelines . . Common terms and conditions for purchase. See.B. Cartrade Inc. v. Ford Dealers Adv. Association, 446 F.2d 289 (9 cir. 1971).
See also Cooperation Guidelines 3. Some refusal to deny themselves. See z.B. U.S. Healthcare, Inc. v. HealthSource, Inc., 986 F.2d 589, 593 (1st Cir. 1993). Alliances, don`t compete.
See z.B., National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States, 435 U.S. 679, 689 (1978). Patent Pooling. Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 238 U.S. 163 (1931). 3.
Short-lived motivation rule Where the conduct does not in itself fall into the “previous” category, but has little to praise from the point of view of competition policy, the Court still has the option of shortening the rule of reason analysis. See z.B FTC v. Indiana Federation of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447, 458 (1986) (condemns the common refusal of dentists to transmit x-rays to insurers after the rule of reason analysis has been abbreviated). But see California Dental Association. v. FTC, 526 U.S. 756 (1999) (FTC`s “quick look” rule of reason test was insufficient to condemn trade association guidelines; full rule of reason analysis was necessary).
Of course, the concern about cartels and abuse of dominance is that a trade association provides fertile ground for the creation and implementation of various illegal horizontal activities, such as price-fixing, territorial allocation, group boycott and other concerted actions. See z.B. In retric Acid Litigation, 191 F.3d 1090, 1097-98 (9th Cir. 1999). Notification of credit activities to disinterested clearing agencies, which may include branch groups; Ad hoc disclosure of rigorously factual and past information on a given customer`s credit history, without any undistorted or subtle “proposals” on the terms or availability of credit in the future. Z.B. Cement Mfrs. Protective Assn.
v. United States, 268 U.S. 588, 600 (1925) (exchange of credit information that is confirmed in the absence of an agreement on credit terms or on the issue of credit extension); Zoslaw v.