rarely interferes with competition enough to violate the antitrust laws. See Santana Prods., Inc. v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 401 F.3d 123, 132 (3d Cir.2005) (stating, in the context of a section 1 case, that " ‘deception, reprehensible as it is, can be of no consequence so far as the Sherman Act is concerned’ ”). But in some cases, such defamation, which plainly is not competition on the merits, can give rise to antitrust liability, especially when it is combined with other anticompetitive acts. See LePage’s, 324 F.3d at 153, 162; Int’l Travel, 623 F.2d at 1268, 1270; Caribbean, 148 F.3d at 1087. 15 . UPMC argues that we may not consider hirings made outside the limitations period in determining whether the new hirings were anticompetitive. Not so. Toledo Mack, 530 F.3d at 217 (<HOLDING>). 16 . West Penn also claims that UPMC's
holding that the limitations period for  1983 actions arising in ohio is the twoyear period found in ohio rev code  230510 and that the limitations period starts to run when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of his action  holding that an agreement in violation of antitrust laws may be enforceable where the parties underlying conduct is legal holding that in computing time to determine whether an act was performed within a specified period of time under the statute of limitations the first day is excluded and the last day of the period is included holding that it is proper to consider prelimitations period conduct in determining whether conduct within the limitations period violated the antitrust laws holding that the charge was timely when filed within the statute of limitations period even though served after the period