in Indiana Federation of Dentists,” including the quick look approach and the rule of reason). Applying the quick look approach, the FTC first concluded that the conduct was “inherently suspect” because “[t]he challenged conduct is, at its core, concerted action excluding a lower-cost and popular group of competitors,” id. at *25, and “[n]o advanced degree in economics is needed to recognize” that the behavior “is likely to harm competition and consumers, absent a compelling justification,” id. at *26. We affirm the FTC’s mode of analysis and find that its conclusion that the Board’s behavior was likely to cause significant anticompetitive harms is supported by substantial evidence. See Fashion Originators’ Guild of Am., Inc. v. FTC, 312 U.S. 457, 465, 61 S.Ct. 703, 85 L.Ed. 949 (1941) (<HOLDING>); Nw. Wholesale Stationers, Inc. v. Pac.
holding that as a general rule the prosecution is entitled to prove its case by evidence of its own choice holding that the governments lack of direct evidence as to defendants knowledge does not demonstrate that its case was baseless holding that direct evidence of a fact is not necessary and that circumstantial evidence is not only sufficient but may also be more certain satisfying and persuasive holding that manufacturers boycott of certain retailers has both as its necessary tendency and as its purpose and effect the direct suppression of competition holding that a contract was implied where the special employer allowed the claimant to come onto its premises use its equipment and participate in its show under its direction