v. Brown University (1993), and Standard Oil Co. v. United States (1911) as procedural history. However, a restraint of trade may be determined to be a violation of the Sherman Act after a short or brief analysis if its anticompetitive effect is clear. American Needle contended that a brief analysis was appropriate in this case. In response, the defendants contended that the exclusive license arrangement encouraged additional licensee commitment and had numerous procompetitive effects, including improvements in product design, quality, distribution, and coordination of styles with other apparel items that made American Needle obsolete and no longer worth partnering with for the NFL. The NFL basically chalked this up to that it was just strictly business and they wanted the best partner for the NFL’s
v. Brown University (1993), and Standard Oil Co. v. United States (1911) as procedural history. However, a restraint of trade may be determined to be a violation of the Sherman Act after a short or brief analysis if its anticompetitive effect is clear. American Needle contended that a brief analysis was appropriate in this case. In response, the defendants contended that the exclusive license arrangement encouraged additional licensee commitment and had numerous procompetitive effects, including improvements in product design, quality, distribution, and coordination of styles with other apparel items that made American Needle obsolete and no longer worth partnering with for the NFL. The NFL basically chalked this up to that it was just strictly business and they wanted the best partner for the NFL’s