than harmful. However, if the alleged restraint falls into the category of agreements or practices that have been condemned by the Supreme Court as being obviously anti-competitive and contrary to the policies underlying the Sherman Act, then the court does not engage in a reasonableness analysis — the restraint is simply presumed per se illegal. “The categories of per se illegal practices are an approximation, a shortcut to reach conduct that courts can safely assume would surely have an anticompeti-tive effect.” Bogan v. Hodgkins, 166 F.3d 509, 515 (2d Cir.1999). Agreements between competitors at the same level of the market structure that involve price fixing, territory allocation, the orchestration of group boy nc., 551 U.S. 877, 907, 127 S.Ct. 2705, 168 L.Ed.2d 623 (2007) (<HOLDING>). Classifying the nature of the restraint
holding nonprice vertical restrictions are analyzed under the rule of reason holding vertical price restraints are judged according to the rule of reason holding that a maximum vertical price maintenance scheme is not per se illegal holding that plaintiff was entitled to sue under rule 10b5 for the difference between the price and the value received from the sale of the security where as here the evil is not the price at which plaintiff bought but the fact of being induced to buy holding that vertical minimum pricefixing agreements like vertical maximum pricefixing agreements should be evaluated under the traditional rule of reason