restraint is subjected to general rule of reason analysis requiring full consideration of power and anticom-petitive effects. Areeda & Hovenkamp at ¶ 1911c (emphasis added). At trial, the district court found that Ford had “transformed itself into a horizontal competitor” through its action and influence with the QVM manufacturers. (Tr. 1431.) Without further analysis, the district court held that the per se rule was applicable. On appeal, Ford argues that it is not a horizontal competitor of Craftsmen, because Ford does not manufacture limousines. Ford therefore con tends that the alleged agreements between Ford and American Coach were vertical restraints subject to the rule of reason analysis. See NYNEX Corp. v. Discon, Inc., 525 U.S. 128, 135, 119 S.Ct. 493, 142 L.Ed.2d 510 (1998) (<HOLDING>); Klor’s, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc.,
holding such agreements to be per se illegal holding a concerted boycott to be a per se violation of  1 of the sherman act holding that per se statutory rule is not permissible under fourth amendment holding that a maximum vertical price maintenance scheme is not per se illegal holding that the per se rule does not apply to a vertical agreement between a buyer and supplier and noting that precedent limits the per se rule in the boycott context to cases involving horizontal agreements among direct competitors