1. What is the relevant market?

2. What do you think the purpose of the agreement between these two firms was? Do you think that the managers of these companies could have legitimately thought that their contract was not against the public interest?

3. Do you think that the result would have been the same if the companies had decided to form a joint venture in Georgia? What standard would the court use to review a joint venture?

4. Recall from the chapter discussion that a joint venture is illegal per se where its purpose is to engage in behavior that is illegal per se. Do you think that it is harder to prove that a joint venture has an illegal purpose or to prove the existence of a horizontal market allocation?

5. Does your answer to Question 4 suggest greater leeway for joint ventures? Can you think of reasons why courts might allow joint ventures greater freedom than two independent companies?

OPINION: PER CURIAM. In preparation for the 1985 Georgia Bar Examination, petitioners contracted to take a bar review course offered by respondent BRG of Georgia, Inc. (BRG). They contend that the price of BRG’s course was enhanced by reason of an unlawful agreement between BRG and respondent Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Legal and Professional Publications (HBJ), the Nation’s largest provider of bar review materials and lecture services. The central issue is whether the 1980 agreement between respondents violated § 1 of the Sherman Act.