For approximately three years, Larry and Shirley McQuillan had served as distributors of sorbothane products for a certain firm and its successor. After they lost their distributorship and their business failed, the McQuillans sued both firms, as well as other affiliated companies and individuals. The McQuillans raised various legal claims, including a claim that the defendants engaged in attempted monopolization, in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act. The evidence produced at trial revealed various instances of unfair or predatory conduct engaged in by the defendants and directed toward the McQuillans. The jury awarded the McQuillans a very substantial damages award on their attempted monopolization claim. The defendants appealed. Relying on one of its own precedents (a 1964 decision), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the evidence of the defendants' unfair or predatory conduct served to satisfy the specific intent to monopolize and dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power elements of the McQuillans' attempted monopolization claim, even though the McQuillans presented no proof of the relevant market or the defendants' market power therein. Was the Ninth Circuit's holding correct?