texaco v dr hayes that a lawful joint venture is also incapable of conspiring for the same basic reasons but what's the answer here what's the proper legal analysis here will the third circuit has already told us on two separate occasions in terms of how should the analysis be made here in single entity this court told us in the wife's decision specifically that and i trust policy requires court to see the economic substance of the arrangement at issue and further this court told us that where there is an association of competitors such as the a t p here their actions are subject just under section one itself this isn't this  circumstance though where as in other professional sports leagues you can't you can't produce the product without close coordination cooperation  that analysis i mean the what is the relevant market is one of the most disputed issues in this case so it seems to me the and i competitive effects are not easy quote easily ascertainable as the supreme court said an order to qualify possibly qualify for the quick look method of analysis and how do we how do you get over that particular point well just seem to be so many close conflicting questions here that are not suitable for the quick the you know the cases better than we do i'm sure there are uncertainly there's so many different approaches to these sports leagues situations that it just seems to me that if you're wrong on the quick luck and you know continue to argue if you wish if you're wrong on that then i'd like you to go back to judge jordan's question as to why the relevant market failure proof but with respect to the evidence that is there on the most questions your honor that you raise are there quote those questions and we don't think so not in terms of the record that was here in the admissions that were made in the trial court with respect to the end of competitive agreements was before and i hope i'm not feeling apprehend the essence of your question but i don't think so and for the reasons that we have stayed in with respect to the single into the instruction that was given here if you ask me to go back  section one because under a quick look mode of analysis that would have meant the burden would have been on them and that's the way that the jury should have dealt with this release that's what i understand to be saying right ok so let's set that aside for minute assume for the purpose and you do and you didn't make any argument in the district or did you that there were different markets for section one purpose and for section two pieces did you we did not ok so if you didn't prove it as the section two and the jury said you didn't prove it is the section two how could you survive why does that make a difference how how can it make a difference if the jury assume that they'd been given every instruction you would want and with respect to single entity and they'd said ok it's not a single there could be collusion but they have found they have decided that you didn't prove what you needed to prove with respect to market aren't you you still you still come up short right well there is a case to this that this circuit has decided your honor with respect and the the case two and what this court said there was that this court made the analysis of how there are differences between the two types of on the jury i don't think anybody is disputing that the only the only question that maybe you've got your answer but the question isn't whether there are differences analytically between section through the question is if you have to prove a relevant market for both and in the district court you didn't assert that there was any difference but and the jury said you didn't you didn't carry direct yeah but you made at the end and you wonder well what's the point of the quick look at that point you well in the reason for that is the court needs to hear the argument on whether on what the evidence was or was not on and i competitive effects and i compared intentions whether there was admitted and i compared to the facts in the relevant players services market we believe that under the under the analysis required by the court on what is the proper mode i'd say well that's a good weekend we want to have a tournament that weekend we don't care what they're doing over there and then you know bit more from players and all that i mean that's real competition but that doesn't doesn't well it's real competition does not exist here because of the rules and requirements that were legislated through this brave new world program if it with you but you have total market the answers is no but the important precedent in the united states is the brown university third circuit and this court described exactly how you deal with the problem that you just by your question you have a balance and once the mode of analysis is you get a rule of reason analysis which includes everything that this court wrote in brown university you have the decision made by the district court the first instance as you know and then with what you instructed in brown university you make each of the three types of inquiry that you described that is the both parties they present evidence on and that balancing that occurs is what you wrote in brown university but if the motive analysis is made that way in this towards this court's balancing test as given to us and grounds is applied trust claims second in order to overturn the verdict here the jury verdict here on the section one claim the only half i trust claim that on which they appeal homburg must show error both on the claim failure to instruct on the quick look in the decision to submit to the jury the factual question of whether however it had proven the existence of any contract combination or conspiracy in addition number three it must also prove antitrust injury if the if the court had properly selected quick look as the mode of analysis and instructed the jury in that regard then then that we would not have had to address relevant mark with respect to section one and it would it should be entitled to go back and and have it a shot at this under the correct mode analysis but you know that argument is just wrong quick look does not ignore the necessity of having anti competitive facts in a market with look as a mode of analysis of quick look recognizes there are certain instances where the court looks at a certain type of presumption if you will and in that instance if the defendants can present any pro competitive justifications the bubble is burst once the bubble has burst then what must be done is a full scale rule of reason analysis and any universe of recognizing that any pro competitive justifications may have been raised then we must do in the words of brown university a full scale rule of reason a test and in fact that's exactly what the supreme court recognized intel dental when it was power in a properly defined market that the practice is in question and personally affected competition in that market in that on balance the adverse effects on competition outweigh the combat competitive benefits and that's a case where of course market where the effects in the player's services want it well the fact is they went to trial and after that trial they were unable to stablish it player services wanted a very tight they tried to define some type of work  products from day one all those are the type of decisions poor taste every year you're on two year in this a ceremony all these board members take dinner make any difference in whether indian wells was doing well or not doing well and that seems here required didn't they not that the that you have a certain number of the tour owners voting for it so how does the cinerama generalized majority of murphy target is the case that the district court relied on and rightly so when you're dealing in this area but a lot of a lot of that's been criticized quite a bit as in that case i think in general more and more cases  but or or on price indeed what's remarkable in this case is plaintiff's never pointed it's pretty fact intensive inquiry isn't it about the character of the cooperation required to put out the product in the degree of cooperation that's exactly right and that's exactly why these issues all went to the jury and that's exactly why the jury that how they felt relative market is exactly why it would never  we could come back to two or three points first with respect to the circuit's decision in colombia about this circuit has confirmed in colombia of metals this in that case this court size the fair to prove market under section two does not necessarily mean  under section one second what else did this court tell us on this quick look doctrine again we go back to brown universe under under the full scale rule of reason that this court described in brown university specifically if quick look is the instructions really you don't think that there's some obligation to give the other side in the court a heads up that you have a specific analytical framework that you think the jury should be obligated to go by before you get to the jury instructions s a question of law that has to be answered first by the district court that is whether quick quick apply it is the motive enough ok and if you never ask the district court to do that do you have a problem we didn't ask the district or the instructions because that's the only that's the only your that's the context in which this arises it would be premature before they have a chance to put their evidence in one way or another the judge the district judge has to hear everything with respect to this is a product perspective the end i competitive  zero two and fourteen ninety nine reached outside the tour and made agreements with the grand slams or the international tennis federation if it was about a product or the davis cup the players services in a competitive agreements reached across the entire spectrum   not didn't try to sue the the davis cup or that the grand slams and say there was collusion with them you picked a t p and and you focus on it and you said there were breaches of duty and that's those are classic assertions against an entity a corporate entity and therefore they even by the very way they approach the case of acknowledge that this is what's your response  of when did we gain the information about the agreement with the grand slams that is exhibit four hundred ninety nine the year in tournaments agree when we get that exhibit fifteen hundred fifty nine months before just a few months before the trial itself we came to understand as the case was arrangements involved and the economic substance have three distinct and with respect to the player services market yeah they go beyond themselves and beyond the product itself and the a t p yes they went to the international tennis aeration and made an agreement