american
needle
national
football
league
et
argued
january
decided
may
respondent
national
football
league
nfl
unincorporated
association
separately
owned
professional
football
teams
also
respondents
teams
owns
name
colors
logo
trademarks
related
intellectual
property
formed
respondent
national
football
league
properties
nflp
develop
license
market
property
first
nflp
granted
nonexclusive
licenses
petitioner
vendors
manufacture
sell
apparel
december
however
teams
authorized
nflp
grant
exclusive
licenses
nflp
granted
exclusive
license
respondent
reebok
international
produce
sell
trademarked
headwear
teams
petitioner
license
renewed
filed
action
alleging
agreements
respondents
violated
sherman
act
makes
contract
combination
conspiracy
restraint
trade
illegal
respondents
answered
incapable
conspiring
within
meaning
nfl
teams
antitrust
law
jargon
single
entity
respect
conduct
challenged
district
granted
respondents
summary
judgment
seventh
circuit
affirmed
held
alleged
conduct
related
licensing
intellectual
property
constitutes
concerted
action
categorically
beyond
coverage
pp
meaning
contract
combination
conspiracy
sherman
act
informed
act
distinction
concerted
independent
action
copperweld
independence
tube
section
treat
concerted
behavior
strictly
unilateral
behavior
unlike
independent
action
oncerted
activity
inherently
fraught
anticompetitive
risk
insofar
deprives
marketplace
independent
centers
decisionmaking
competition
assumes
demands
concerted
action
discrete
distinct
limit
activity
leaves
untouched
vast
amount
business
conduct
creates
less
risk
deterring
firm
necessary
conduct
leaves
courts
examine
discrete
agreements
arrangement
must
therefore
embody
concerted
action
order
contract
combination
conspiracy
pp
determining
whether
concerted
action
eschewed
formalistic
distinctions
whether
alleged
conspirators
legally
distinct
entities
favor
functional
consideration
actually
operate
repeatedly
found
instances
members
legally
single
entity
violated
entity
controlled
group
competitors
served
essence
vehicle
ongoing
concerted
activity
see
sealy
conversely
found
although
entities
may
separate
purposes
incorporation
formal
title
controlled
single
center
decisionmaking
control
single
aggregation
economic
power
agreement
constitute
contract
combination
conspiracy
copperweld
pp
relevant
inquiry
therefore
one
substance
form
turn
whether
alleged
parties
contract
combination
conspiracy
part
legally
single
entity
seem
like
one
firm
multiple
firms
metaphysical
sense
inquiry
whether
agreement
question
joins
together
separate
economic
actors
pursuing
separate
economic
interests
copperweld
deprives
marketplace
independent
centers
decisionmaking
therefore
diversity
entrepreneurial
interests
thus
actual
potential
competition
concerted
action
covered
must
decide
whether
restraint
trade
unreasonable
therefore
illegal
pp
nfl
teams
possess
either
unitary
decisionmaking
quality
single
aggregation
economic
power
characteristic
independent
action
substantial
independently
owned
independently
managed
business
whose
general
corporate
actions
guided
determined
separate
corporate
consciousnesses
whose
objectives
common
copperweld
compete
one
another
playing
field
attract
fans
gate
receipts
contracts
managerial
playing
personnel
see
brown
pro
football
directly
relevant
teams
potentially
competing
suppliers
market
intellectual
property
teams
license
property
pursuing
common
interests
whole
league
instead
interests
corporation
copperweld
dispositive
respondents
argue
forming
nflp
formed
single
entity
akin
merger
market
nfl
brands
single
outlet
although
nfl
respondents
may
similar
sense
single
enterprise
similar
relevant
functional
sense
teams
common
interests
promoting
nfl
brand
still
separate
entities
interests
licensing
team
trademarks
necessarily
aligned
matter
teams
may
find
alleged
cooperation
necessary
compete
forms
entertainment
although
decisions
made
nflp
easily
classified
concerted
activity
nflp
decisions
licensing
teams
separately
owned
intellectual
property
concerted
activity
thus
covered
reason
decisions
made
directly
teams
covered
making
relevant
licensing
decisions
nflp
instrumentality
teams
sealy
pp
football
teams
need
cooperate
trapped
antitrust
law
fact
nfl
teams
share
interest
making
entire
league
successful
profitable
must
cooperate
produce
games
provides
perfectly
sensible
justification
making
host
collective
decisions
restraints
competition
necessary
produce
nfl
product
rule
reason
generally
apply
teams
cooperation
likely
permissible
depending
upon
activity
question
rule
reason
times
applied
without
detailed
analysis
activity
issue
case
still
concerted
activity
covered
purposes
pp
reversed
remanded
stevens
delivered
opinion
unanimous
american
needle
petitioner
national
football
league
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
seventh
circuit
may
justice
stevens
delivered
opinion
every
contract
combination
form
trust
otherwise
conspiracy
restraint
trade
made
illegal
sherman
act
ch
stat
amended
question
whether
arrangement
contract
combination
conspiracy
different
antecedent
question
whether
unreasonably
restrains
trade
case
raises
antecedent
question
business
teams
national
football
league
nfl
corporate
entity
formed
manage
intellectual
property
conclude
nfl
licensing
activities
constitute
concerted
action
categorically
beyond
coverage
legality
concerted
action
must
judged
rule
reason
originally
organized
nfl
unincorporated
association
includes
separately
owned
professional
football
team
name
colors
logo
owns
related
intellectual
property
like
teams
league
new
orleans
saints
indianapolis
colts
example
distinctive
names
colors
marks
well
known
millions
sports
fans
prior
teams
made
arrangements
licensing
intellectual
property
marketing
trademarked
items
caps
jerseys
teams
formed
national
football
league
properties
nflp
develop
license
market
intellectual
property
substantial
revenues
generated
nflp
either
given
charity
shared
equally
among
teams
however
teams
able
times
sought
withdraw
arrangement
nflp
granted
nonexclusive
licenses
number
vendors
permitting
manufacture
sell
apparel
bearing
team
insignias
petitioner
american
needle
one
licensees
december
teams
voted
authorize
nflp
grant
exclusive
licenses
nflp
granted
reebok
international
exclusive
license
manufacture
sell
trademarked
headwear
teams
thereafter
declined
renew
american
needle
nonexclusive
license
american
needle
filed
action
northern
district
illinois
alleging
agreements
nfl
teams
nflp
reebok
violated
sherman
act
answer
complaint
defendants
averred
teams
nfl
nflp
incapable
conspiring
within
meaning
single
economic
enterprise
least
respect
conduct
challenged
app
limited
discovery
district
granted
summary
judgment
question
whether
regard
facet
operations
respecting
exploitation
intellectual
property
rights
nfl
teams
jargon
antitrust
law
acting
single
entity
american
needle
new
orleans
la
saints
supp
concluded
facet
operations
integrated
operations
deemed
single
entity
rather
joint
ventures
cooperating
common
purpose
ibid
appeals
seventh
circuit
affirmed
panel
observed
contexts
league
seems
aptly
described
single
entity
immune
antitrust
scrutiny
others
league
appears
joint
venture
independently
owned
teams
subject
review
relying
circuit
precedent
limited
inquiry
particular
conduct
issue
licensing
teams
intellectual
property
panel
agreed
petitioner
making
determination
courts
must
examine
whether
conduct
question
deprives
marketplace
independent
sources
economic
control
competition
assumes
however
discounted
significance
potential
competition
among
teams
regarding
use
intellectual
property
teams
function
one
source
economic
power
collectively
producing
nfl
football
noted
football
carried
jointly
see
ibid
asserting
single
football
team
produce
football
game
zen
riddle
wins
football
team
plays
moreover
nfl
teams
share
vital
economic
interest
collectively
promoting
nfl
football
compet
forms
entertainment
ibid
thus
follows
found
one
source
economic
power
controls
promotion
nfl
football
makes
little
sense
assert
individual
team
authority
responsibility
promote
jointly
produced
nfl
football
ibid
recognizing
nfl
teams
license
intellectual
property
collectively
since
held
apply
granted
certiorari
ii
case
comes
us
narrow
issue
decide
whether
nfl
respondents
capable
engaging
contract
combination
conspiracy
defined
sherman
act
sometimes
phrased
whether
alleged
activity
nfl
respondents
must
viewed
single
enterprise
purposes
copperweld
independence
tube
taken
literally
applicability
every
contract
combination
conspiracy
understood
cover
every
conceivable
agreement
whether
group
competing
firms
fixing
prices
single
firm
chief
executive
telling
subordinate
price
company
product
even
though
read
literally
address
entire
body
private
contract
statute
means
national
soc
professional
engineers
see
also
texaco
dagher
taken
literal
approach
language
cf
board
trade
chicago
reasoning
term
restraint
trade
possibly
refer
restraint
competition
agreement
concerning
trade
every
regulation
trade
restrains
bind
restrain
essence
every
instance
cooperation
two
people
potential
contract
combination
conspiracy
restraint
trade
meaning
term
contract
combination
conspiracy
informed
sherman
act
concerted
independent
distinguishes
sherman
act
copperweld
quoting
monsanto
service
section
applies
concerted
action
restrains
trade
section
contrast
covers
concerted
independent
action
action
monopolize
threatens
actual
monopolization
copperweld
category
narrower
restraint
trade
monopoly
power
may
equally
harmful
whether
product
joint
action
individual
action
congress
used
distinction
concerted
independent
action
deter
anticompetitive
conduct
compensate
victims
without
chilling
vigorous
competition
ordinary
business
operations
distinction
also
avoids
judicial
scrutiny
routine
internal
business
decisions
thus
congress
treated
concerted
behavior
strictly
unilateral
behavior
unlike
independent
action
oncerted
activity
inherently
fraught
anticompetitive
risk
insofar
deprives
marketplace
independent
centers
decisionmaking
competition
assumes
demands
concerted
action
discrete
distinct
limit
activity
leaves
untouched
vast
amount
business
conduct
result
less
risk
deterring
firm
necessary
conduct
courts
need
examine
discrete
agreements
conduct
may
remedied
simply
see
areeda
hovenkamp
concerted
activity
thus
judged
sternly
unilateral
activity
copperweld
reasons
prohibits
concerted
action
restraint
trade
commerce
even
action
threate
monopolization
ibid
therefore
arrangement
must
embody
concerted
action
order
contract
combination
conspiracy
iii
long
held
concerted
action
turn
simply
whether
parties
involved
legally
distinct
entities
instead
eschewed
formalistic
distinctions
favor
functional
consideration
parties
involved
alleged
anticompetitive
conduct
actually
operate
result
repeatedly
found
instances
members
legally
single
entity
violated
entity
controlled
group
competitors
served
essence
vehicle
ongoing
concerted
activity
sealy
example
group
mattress
manufacturers
operated
controlled
sealy
company
licensed
sealy
trademark
manufacturers
dictated
operate
within
specific
geographic
area
government
alleged
licensees
sealy
conspiring
violation
agreed
explained
seek
central
substance
situation
therefore
moved
identity
persons
act
rather
label
hats
thus
held
sealy
separate
entity
instrumentality
individual
manufacturers
similar
circumstances
found
formally
distinct
business
organizations
covered
see
northwest
wholesale
stationers
pacific
stationery
printing
national
collegiate
athletic
assn
board
regents
univ
ncaa
topco
associates
associated
press
frankfurter
concurring
terminal
railroad
assn
louis
see
also
rock
corporate
law
antitrust
lens
colum
rev
discussing
cases
similarly
looked
past
form
legally
single
entity
competitors
part
professional
trade
conversely
necessarily
concerted
action
simply
one
legally
distinct
entity
involved
although
doctrine
known
intraenterprise
conspiracy
doctrine
treated
cooperation
legally
separate
entities
necessarily
covered
embark
functional
analysis
roots
functional
analysis
found
decision
established
intraenterprise
conspiracy
doctrine
yellow
cab
observed
corporate
interrelationships
determinitive
applicability
sherman
act
act
aimed
substance
rather
form
nonetheless
held
cooperation
legally
separate
entities
necessarily
covered
unreasonable
restraint
trade
may
result
readily
conspiracy
among
affiliated
integrated
common
ownership
conspiracy
among
otherwise
independent
ibid
see
also
joseph
seagram
sons
decline
intraenterprise
conspiracy
doctrine
began
sunkist
growers
winckler
smith
citrus
products
case
several
agricultural
cooperatives
owned
farmers
sued
violations
sherman
act
applying
specific
immunity
provision
agricultural
cooperatives
held
three
cooperatives
practical
effect
one
organization
even
though
controlling
farmers
formally
organized
three
separate
legal
entities
hold
otherwise
explained
impose
grave
legal
consequences
upon
organizational
distinctions
de
minimis
meaning
effect
insofar
use
separate
corporations
economic
significance
ibid
next
citizens
southern
nat
bank
large
bank
citizens
southern
formed
holding
company
operated
de
facto
suburban
branch
banks
atlanta
area
ownership
maximum
amount
stock
local
branch
allowed
law
ownership
much
remaining
stock
parties
friendly
use
suburban
banks
logogram
banking
services
close
oversight
operation
governance
suburban
banks
omitted
government
challenged
cooperation
banks
analysis
observed
interrelationships
determinative
looked
economic
substance
observed
sponsored
banks
set
competitors
compel
compete
areeda
hovenkamp
see
also
citizens
southern
areeda
intraenterprise
conspiracy
decline
harv
rev
finally
reexamined
intraenterprise
conspiracy
doctrine
copperweld
independence
tube
concluded
inconsistent
distinction
concerted
independent
action
considering
perfectly
plain
internal
agreement
implement
single
unitary
firm
policies
raise
antitrust
dangers
designed
police
held
parent
corporation
wholly
owned
subsidiary
incapable
conspiring
purposes
sherman
act
explained
although
parent
corporation
wholly
owned
subsidiary
separate
purposes
incorporation
formal
title
controlled
single
center
decisionmaking
control
single
aggregation
economic
power
joint
conduct
two
entities
depriv
marketplace
independent
centers
decisionmaking
result
agreement
constitute
contract
combination
conspiracy
purposes
iv
copperweld
exemplifies
substance
form
determine
whether
entity
capable
conspiring
inquiry
sometimes
described
asking
whether
alleged
conspirators
single
entity
perhaps
misdescription
however
question
whether
defendant
legally
single
entity
single
name
question
whether
parties
involved
seem
like
one
firm
multiple
firms
metaphysical
sense
key
whether
alleged
contract
combination
conspiracy
concerted
action
whether
joins
together
separate
decisionmakers
relevant
inquiry
therefore
whether
contract
combination
conspiracy
amongst
separate
economic
actors
pursuing
separate
economic
interests
agreement
deprives
marketplace
independent
centers
decisionmaking
therefore
diversity
entrepreneurial
interests
fraser
major
league
soccer
boudin
thus
actual
potential
competition
see
freeman
san
diego
assn
realtors
kozinski
rothery
storage
van
atlas
van
line
cadc
bork
see
also
areeda
hovenkamp
noting
central
evil
addressed
sherman
act
elimin
ation
competition
otherwise
exist
thus
president
vice
president
firm
regularly
act
combination
joint
action
generally
sort
combination
intended
cover
agreements
might
described
really
unilateral
behavior
flowing
decisions
single
enterprise
copperweld
reason
cover
internally
coordinated
conduct
corporation
one
unincorporated
divisions
division
within
corporate
structure
pursues
common
interests
whole
therefore
coordination
corporation
division
represent
sudden
joining
two
independent
sources
economic
power
previously
pursuing
separate
interests
reasons
coordinated
activity
parent
wholly
owned
subsidiary
covered
see
complete
unity
interest
thus
ith
without
formal
subsidiary
acts
benefit
parent
sole
shareholder
ibid
inquiry
one
competitive
reality
determinative
two
parties
alleged
violation
legally
distinct
entities
however
determinative
two
legally
distinct
entities
organized
single
umbrella
structured
joint
venture
question
whether
agreement
joins
together
independent
centers
decisionmaking
entities
capable
conspiring
must
decide
whether
restraint
trade
unreasonable
therefore
illegal
one
nfl
teams
possess
either
unitary
decisionmaking
quality
single
aggregation
economic
power
characteristic
independent
action
teams
substantial
independently
owned
independently
managed
business
heir
general
corporate
actions
guided
determined
separate
corporate
consciousnesses
heir
objectives
common
copperweld
see
also
north
american
soccer
league
nfl
discussing
ways
financial
performance
team
related
others
necessarily
rise
fall
others
teams
compete
one
another
playing
field
attract
fans
gate
receipts
contracts
managerial
playing
personnel
see
brown
pro
football
sullivan
nfl
grizzlies
nfl
cf
ncaa
directly
relevant
case
teams
compete
market
intellectual
property
firm
making
hats
saints
colts
two
potentially
competing
suppliers
valuable
trademarks
nfl
team
licenses
intellectual
property
pursuing
common
interests
whole
league
instead
pursuing
interests
corporation
copperweld
teams
acting
separate
economic
actors
pursuing
separate
economic
interests
team
therefore
potential
independent
cente
decisionmaking
decisions
nfl
teams
license
separately
owned
trademarks
collectively
one
vendor
decisions
depriv
marketplace
independent
centers
decisionmaking
therefore
actual
potential
competition
see
ncaa
observing
possible
violation
two
separately
owned
companies
sold
separate
products
single
selling
agent
cf
areeda
hovenkamp
obviously
significant
competitive
threats
arise
joint
venture
participants
actual
potential
competitors
defense
respondents
argue
forming
nflp
formed
single
entity
akin
merger
market
nfl
brands
single
outlet
dispositive
teams
organized
legally
separate
entity
centralizes
management
intellectual
property
ongoing
violation
evade
scrutiny
simply
giving
ongoing
violation
name
label
perhaps
every
agreement
combination
restraint
trade
labeled
timken
roller
bearing
nfl
respondents
may
similar
sense
single
enterprise
owns
several
pieces
intellectual
property
licenses
jointly
similar
relevant
functional
sense
although
nfl
teams
common
interests
promoting
nfl
brand
still
separate
entities
interests
licensing
team
trademarks
necessarily
aligned
see
generally
hovenkamp
exclusive
joint
ventures
antitrust
policy
colum
bus
rev
shishido
conflicts
interest
fiduciary
duties
operation
joint
venture
hastings
common
interests
nfl
brand
partially
unit
economic
interests
parent
firms
broadley
joint
ventures
antitrust
policy
harv
rev
emphasis
added
teams
still
distinct
potentially
competing
interests
may
respondents
argue
nflp
served
driver
teams
promotional
vehicle
ing
common
interests
whole
brief
nfl
respondents
quoting
copperweld
brackets
original
illegal
restraints
often
common
interests
parties
restraint
expense
parties
true
respondents
describe
time
marketed
trademarks
jointly
history
concerted
activity
immunize
conduct
scrutiny
absence
actual
competition
may
simply
manifestation
anticompetitive
agreement
freeman
respondents
argue
nonetheless
appeals
held
constitute
single
entity
without
cooperation
nfl
football
true
clubs
make
professional
sports
league
completely
independent
economic
competitors
depend
upon
degree
cooperation
economic
survival
brown
appeals
reasoning
unpersuasive
justification
cooperation
relevant
whether
cooperation
concerted
independent
contract
combination
conspiracy
necessary
useful
joint
venture
still
contract
combination
conspiracy
deprives
marketplace
independent
centers
decisionmaking
copperweld
see
ncaa
oint
ventures
immunity
antitrust
laws
joint
venture
involves
multiple
sources
economic
power
cooperating
produce
product
many
ventures
participation
others
necessary
mean
necessity
cooperation
transforms
concerted
action
independent
action
nut
bolt
operate
together
agreement
nut
bolt
manufacturers
still
subject
analysis
mean
group
firms
agree
produce
joint
product
cooperation
amongst
firms
must
treated
independent
conduct
mere
fact
teams
operate
jointly
sense
mean
question
whether
nflp
decisions
constitute
concerted
activity
covered
closer
whether
decisions
made
directly
teams
covered
nflp
separate
corporation
management
record
indicates
revenues
generated
nflp
shared
teams
equal
basis
nevertheless
think
clear
reasons
teams
conduct
covered
nflp
actions
also
subject
least
regards
marketing
property
owned
separate
teams
nflp
licensing
decisions
made
potential
competitors
actually
owns
share
jointly
managed
assets
cf
sealy
apart
agreement
cooperate
exploiting
assets
including
decisions
nflp
nothing
prevent
teams
making
market
decisions
relating
purchases
apparel
headwear
sale
items
granting
licenses
use
trademarks
generally
treat
agreements
within
single
firm
independent
action
presumption
components
firm
act
maximize
firm
profits
rare
cases
presumption
hold
agreements
made
within
firm
constitute
concerted
action
covered
parties
agreement
act
interests
separate
firm
intrafirm
agreements
may
simply
formalistic
shell
ongoing
concerted
action
see
topco
associates
sealy
reason
decisions
nflp
regarding
teams
separately
owned
intellectual
property
constitute
concerted
action
teams
operating
independently
vehicle
nflp
like
components
single
firm
act
maximize
firm
profits
teams
remain
separately
controlled
potential
competitors
economic
interests
distinct
nflp
financial
see
generally
hovenkamp
colum
bus
unlike
typical
decisions
corporate
shareholders
nflp
licensing
decisions
effectively
require
assent
mere
majority
shareholders
team
decision
reflects
interest
nflp
profits
also
interest
team
individual
profits
see
generally
shusido
hastings
teams
capture
individual
economic
benefits
separate
apart
nflp
profits
result
decisions
make
nflp
nflp
decisions
thus
affect
team
profits
licensing
intellectual
property
although
business
interests
teams
often
coincide
nflp
entity
commonality
interest
exists
every
cartel
los
angeles
memorial
coliseum
nfl
emphasis
added
making
relevant
licensing
decisions
nflp
therefore
instrumentality
teams
sealy
see
also
topco
associates
fact
potential
competitors
shared
profits
losses
venture
meant
venture
immune
cartel
evade
antitrust
law
simply
creating
venture
serve
exclusive
seller
competing
products
major
league
baseball
properties
salvino
sotomayor
concurring
judgment
long
agreement
one
made
cartelists
sitting
board
joint
venture
explicitly
listed
prices
charged
companies
act
monopolies
venture
ibid
indeed
joint
venture
single
management
structure
generally
better
way
operate
cartel
decreases
risks
party
illegal
agreement
defecting
agreement
however
competitors
simply
get
around
antitrust
liability
acting
intermediary
venture
vi
football
teams
need
cooperate
trapped
antitrust
law
special
characteristics
industry
may
provide
justification
many
kinds
agreements
brown
stevens
dissenting
fact
nfl
teams
share
interest
making
entire
league
successful
profitable
must
cooperate
production
scheduling
games
provides
perfectly
sensible
justification
making
host
collective
decisions
conduct
issue
case
still
concerted
activity
sherman
act
subject
analysis
restraints
competition
essential
product
available
per
se
rules
illegality
inapplicable
instead
restraint
must
judged
according
flexible
rule
ncaa
see
decision
apply
per
se
rule
case
rests
large
part
recognition
certain
degree
cooperation
necessary
type
competition
petitioner
member
institutions
seek
market
preserved
see
also
dagher
instances
agreement
likely
survive
rule
reason
see
broadcast
music
columbia
broadcasting
system
joint
ventures
cooperative
arrangements
also
usually
unlawful
agreement
necessary
market
product
depending
upon
concerted
activity
question
rule
reason
may
require
detailed
analysis
sometimes
applied
twinkling
eye
ncaa
features
nfl
may
also
save
agreements
amongst
teams
recognized
example
interest
maintaining
competitive
balance
among
athletic
teams
legitimate
important
ncaa
interest
applies
teams
nfl
justify
treating
single
entity
purposes
comes
marketing
teams
individually
owned
intellectual
property
however
unquestionably
interest
may
well
justify
variety
collective
decisions
made
teams
role
properly
plays
applying
rule
reason
allegations
case
matter
considered
remand
accordingly
judgment
appeals
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
nfl
founded
canton
ohio
american
professional
football
association
football
league
national
football
league
took
current
name
ibid
franchises
failed
first
years
league
existence
ibid
congress
prohibited
independent
action
merely
restrains
trade
even
threaten
monopolization
prohibition
deter
perfectly
competitive
conduct
firms
fearful
litigation
costs
judicial
error
see
copperweld
judging
unilateral
conduct
manner
reduces
risk
antitrust
laws
dampen
competitive
zeal
single
aggressive
competitor
cf
gypsum
alutary
procompetitive
conduct
might
shunned
businessmen
chose
excessively
cautious
face
uncertainty
moreover
every
unilateral
action
restrained
trade
subject
antitrust
scrutiny
courts
forced
judge
almost
every
internal
business
decision
see
areeda
hovenkamp
antitrust
law
ed
hereinafter
areeda
hovenkamp
unilateral
behavior
often
difficult
evaluate
remedy
see
ftc
indiana
federation
dentists
arizona
maricopa
county
medical
national
soc
professional
engineers
goldfarb
virginia
state
bar
see
allied
tube
conduit
indian
head
radiant
burners
peoples
gas
light
coke
per
curiam
fashion
originators
guild
america
ftc
focus
substance
form
copperweld
also
seen
cases
whether
company
agent
capable
conspiring
see
simpson
union
oil
see
also
elhauge
geradin
global
antitrust
law
economics
hereinafter
elhauge
geradin
explaining
functional
difference
simpson
general
elec
treated
similar
agreement
beyond
reach
discussed
infra
necessity
cooperation
factor
relevant
whether
agreement
subject
rule
reason
see
ncaa
holding
ncaa
restrictions
televising
college
football
games
subject
rule
reason
analysis
critical
reason
horizontal
restraints
competition
essential
product
available
event
simply
apparent
alleged
conduct
necessary
although
two
teams
needed
play
football
game
aspects
elaborate
interleague
cooperation
necessary
produce
game
moreover
even
leaguewide
agreements
necessary
produce
football
follow
concerted
activity
marketing
intellectual
property
necessary
produce
football
appeals
carved
zone
antitrust
immunity
conduct
arguably
related
league
operations
reasoning
coordinated
team
trademark
sales
necessary
produce
nfl
football
single
nfl
brand
competes
forms
entertainment
defining
product
nfl
football
puts
cart
horse
course
nfl
produces
nfl
football
mean
cooperation
amongst
nfl
teams
immune
scrutiny
members
cartel
insist
cooperation
necessary
produce
cartel
product
compete
products
see
areeda
hovenkamp
elhauge
geradin
see
also
capital
imaging
assoc
mohawk
valley
medical
bolt
halifax
hospital
medical
center
oksanen
page
memorial
hospital
motive
parts
warehouse
facet
enterprises
victorian
house
fisher
camuto
weiss
york
hospital
purposes
resolving
case
need
pass
upon
government
position
entities
incapable
conspiring
effectively
merged
relevant
aspect
operations
thereby
eliminating
actual
potential
competition
operational
sphere
challenged
restraint
significantly
affect
actual
potential
competition
outside
merged
operations
brief
amicus
curiae
government
urges
choices
offer
blanket
license
single
headwear
licensee
might
constitute
concerted
action
test
however
teams
still
trademarks
free
market
trademarks
see
fit
even
two
choices
agreements
amongst
potential
competitors
constitute
concerted
action
government
standard
point
teams
decide
license
trademarks
significant
moreover
teams
control
nflp
two
choices
government
might
treat
independent
action
although
nominally
made
nflp
functional
purposes
choices
made
entities
potentially
competing
interests
justice
brandeis
provided
classic
formulation
rule
reason
board
trade
chicago
true
test
legality
whether
restraint
imposed
merely
regulates
perhaps
thereby
promotes
competition
whether
may
suppress
even
destroy
competition
determine
question
must
ordinarily
consider
facts
peculiar
business
restraint
applied
condition
restraint
imposed
nature
restraint
effect
actual
probable
history
restraint
evil
believed
exist
reason
adopting
particular
remedy
purpose
end
sought
attained
relevant
facts
good
intention
save
otherwise
objectionable
regulation
reverse
knowledge
intent
may
help
interpret
facts
predict
consequences
see
also
leegin
creative
leather
products
psks
national
soc
professional
engineers