With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and the legitimate justifications provided for the challenged practice, and we determine whether the anti-competitive aspects of the challenged practice outweigh its procompetitive effects.” (footnote omitted and emphasis added)); Eleventh Circuit: U.S. Anchor Mfg., Inc. v. Rule Indus., Inc., 7 F.3d 986, 1001 (11th Cir. 1993) ("The elements of a conspiracy to monopolize under Section 2 are (1) an agreement to restrain trade, (2) deliberately entered into with the specific intent of achieving a monopoly rather than a-legitimate business purpose, (3) which could have had an anticompetitive effect, and (4) the commission of at least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy,''); D.C. Circuit: Caribbean Broad. Sys., Ltd. v. Cable & Wireless PLC, 148 F.3d 1080, 1087 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (<HOLDING>); Fed. Circuit: Intergraph Corp. v. Intel

A: holding within discussion on courts subjectmatter jurisdiction that a wouldbe monopolist or member of a conspiracy to monopolize comes within the condemnation of the sherman act when it engages in anticompetitive conduct  quoting spectrum sports 506 us at 456 113 sct 884
B: holding that standing is component of subjectmatter jurisdiction and subjectmatter jurisdiction is essential to courts authority to hear case
C: holding that same activity violated  2 of the sherman act
D: holding ban violated the sherman act
A.