to why they did it mcdonald's argues they did it because they needed to protect the brain and to make sure that the best operators mr kaminski and mr cho ran those stores but the evidence is that a business decision or send a legal question that it's a question directly compete with mcdonald's the franchise over depends on the setting you're under when it's when stores are put up for sale the answer is yes do they compete in the market for hamburgers or selling hamburgers and cheeseburgers like no but in this market otherwise and then there's no sense when i cut as i understand the problem here and even mr left for your expert as i understand it acknowledged that there was no impact on competition in the sense that because the highest price historically received was received in the pacific northwest you can't show an impact on competition respectfully your honor at that sort of record five seventy because the most efficient operator does not end up owning the stores and winning bidder is the one who believes he can extract the most resources from the stores in this instance when you can interfere with the fair market or the free market process and you substitute approve the acquisition and had serious reservations about the of food ability to operate more than a couple of more stores than what they already have that's a question of disputed fact and in a timely fashion you will not be allowed to do it he did not submit those financial statements mistreats conceal that fact from her superiors as a part of the conspiracy had her superiors know mr cho would not have been  get the story because he was out of compliance with the franchising regulations but i thought ok you're talking about not complying with the regulations with regard to financial information i think the question was with regard to be   in the quality of the operations yes you do concede do you not that there were good fish and seeds on the part of the of the woods and not having this efficient number of three managers who were graduates of hamburger university well i can i can see that fact because as of july second other in which case you really have only one actor that doesn't apply here third the third we have to go showing economic unity it is was there an agreement to share profits and losses if there per se a legal pursuant to and in furtherance of the conspiracy so so is your argument mr taylor that mcdonald's may well have a right of first refusal under a standard franchise agreement but it cannot exercise its contractual right for an improper purpose remember mr cook jobless testimony gives the national vice president a franchise in for mcdonald's and he said he didn't say we need to do this to advance the brand his testimony was we don't need to do this we don't enter into agreements with our franchisees and it is not necessary for the system operating there again that raises a question of fact as to whether the exercise of the right was done of logging contractors getting together to agree that they're going to put the screws to the forest service and they're only going to bid a certain amount of money your client had full control over the building did it not they can run the bid up to ten million a conspiracy is in place doesn't matter what my client lining up to he didn't get the story because of the conspiracy let's come back to play didn't have anything to do with the bidding it had everything to do with mcdonald's exercising its right of first refusal to simply traditional big breaking in the sense of in my hypothetical but the timber sale the forest service is the victim and the impact on competition in that case it was the forest service would received a much higher bid if the market forces had been at play and all of the legitimate bidders had not conspired with one another to put the timber sale up to whatever the economists would call the pure market price here your client is in control that there he can run that bid up as far as he wants and force mcdonald's to then pay that amount of money in order to exercise what you say for an improper reason his right of first coming back to your honest question just how many going through the competition you have multiple injuries in this instance you have the hypothetical injury to do you think no one knows what the price would have been but for the agreement that's a matter of pure speculation they got a high let you know wait a second mr taylor foods could pick whatever price it wanted to fish that that didn't have anything to do with whatever the alleged conspiracy was between mcdonald's chilling kaminski as to who would  if it's might be a greek so i'm still having a heart beat something we're talking apples and oranges in terms of big breaking laws here and i'm having a hard time what i hear you saying is they couldn't do it because it was per se illegal because  conspiracy existed whatever they did is illegal and that's enough we don't have to show any impact on our competition on track so we don't really care what the relevant market but to response you are in fact in a per se don't have to necessarily show old what the fair market price would have been in the absence of the conspiracy we presume that the forest service was harmed by the fact that a bid rigging conspiracy among the bi that hypothetical doesn't include the fact that the limited bitter in this case of food was free because he was not a member of the conspiracy was free to bid up the prices high as he wanted and if mcdonald's shouldn't higher prices for the bit we don't know the answer to that because the marine is the real problem is that mcdonald's has decided in advance where it wants to allocate these franchises but it has a right of first refusal it's going to be able to direct us no matter who comes in so we can have an outside that is people in her decision that there were several in the reasons for granting summary judgment in this case and first and foremost among them was the issue of standing point that's already been discussed by mr a by mr taylor what's your response to his argument to my question that that it doesn't really matter what the impact on the market was however you define it if the per se violation and that's all we well if mr taylor were here prosecuting a criminal case i suppose you might have an argument he's here effect the exercise of the right of first refusal didn't affect the price the price has already been set that have been set by bidding in which the plaintiff perspective it can affect output those stores were already going to be transferred that was the result of the issues that are present so i would say there has been some reference to the part of the plaintiffs to what their expert has said affirmatively about this allocation and the like and what they're signing is a two page sketch required to bring a real reason challenge and this plaintiff in the dager case didn't do that and so the supreme court reversed and said that i think we're out of out of the box legally that they didn't have a claim they didn't have a case here or there has although we i believe that the jack russell case was a very straightforward application of the principle in the williams case but our thesis on all fours with the williams case franchise system that was under review there is in all relevant   i'd like to know because i am inclined to do it we just decided a case or no wife dealing with federal criminal matters to them and corruption in the police department and the newspaper one after the police department we just completely open the books again on that case which had a lot more reason to see it all and i can see here this is just a commercial case between private parties well if if that's if that's something perhaps we can control in a report paver came along he was another part of the conspiracy he won the bid for the road pavers prevailed upon the asphalt supplier not to supply the winning bidder with asphalt to perform the job therefore justice here you have one victim of the state and i believe it was the indiana who was letting the contract and you have another victim the competitor who was excluded as a result of the conspiracy even though he wasn't part of the conspiracy that's our