723 (1983) (“ ‘Congress did not intend the antitrust laws to provide a remedy in damages for all injuries that might conceivably be traced to an antitrust violation.’ ”) (quoting Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co., 405 U.S. 251, 263 n. 14, 92 S.Ct. 885, 31 L.Ed.2d 184 (1972)). Thus, because the antitrust laws were designed to protect competition not competitors, antitrust plaintiffs must assert harm to competition as a whole. See Capital Imaging Assocs., P.C. v. Mohawk Valley Med. Assocs., Inc., 996 F.2d 537, 545 (2d Cir.1993). A plaintiff asserts harm to competition by alleging adverse effects on the price, quality, or output of the relevant good or service. Aventis Envtl. Sci. USA LP v. Scotts Co., 383 F.Supp.2d 488, 503 (S.D.N.Y.2005); see also Capital Imaging Assocs., P.C., 996 F.2d at 546 (<HOLDING>). Not every injury to a would-be competitor
holding summary judgment appropriate where plaintiff failed to establish product identification holding circumstantial evidence that defendant former employer was providing negative employment reference to plaintiffs prospective employers was sufficient to defeat summary judgment on the causation element of prima facie case holding summary judgment appropriate where plaintiffs failed to demonstrate negative effect on price or quality holding that a county was entitled to summary judgment where the claims against the individual defendants had failed holding that summary judgment was appropriate where plaintiffs admissions in her deposition undermined her claims