Opinion ID: 1218786
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Joint Venture Issue

Text: We first dispose of a preliminary issue. Relying on language from Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society, 457 U.S. 332, 102 S.Ct. 2466, 73 L.Ed.2d 48 (1982), defendants argue that we need not engage in any antitrust analysis because they have formed a true joint venture. They maintain that they are a single firm competing with others in the market and have complete freedom to choose those with whom they will deal. In Maricopa, the State of Arizona brought an antitrust action against two foundations that had established schedules of maximum fees that participating doctors would accept as payment in full for services performed for patients insured under plans approved by the foundations. The Court held that the maximum-fee agreements were per se unlawful under section 1 of the Sherman Act. Defendants here rely on the following statement: The foundations are not analogous to partnerships or other joint arrangements in which persons who would otherwise be competitors pool their capital and share the risks of loss as well as the opportunities for profit. In such joint ventures, the partnership is regarded as a single firm competing with other sellers in the market. The agreement under attack is an agreement among hundreds of competing doctors concerning the price at which each will offer his own services to a substantial number of consumers. 457 U.S. at 356-57, 102 S.Ct. at 2479. Even if defendants have formed a true joint venture, they do not automatically escape antitrust laws. We do not read Maricopa to hold that a true joint venture is ipso facto free from antitrust scrutiny. [3] Some of the most significant antitrust cases have held joint ventures to be culpable. [4] In determining whether defendants' actions have violated ORS 646.725, we look at substance, not form. We turn, therefore, to a discussion of plaintiffs' claims.