S. 377, 404 (1956); look for along with Microsoft, 253 F E. I 54. All of us v. du Pont de- Nemours Co. (Cellophane), 351 You.3d within 51­52 (“‘Because the skill of customers to make to many other providers restrains a firm out-of increasing pricing over the aggressive peak,’ the relevant market need to include the situations ‘reasonably similar by consumers for similar intentions.'” (violation excluded) (quoting Rothery Sites Van Co. v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 210, 218 (D.C. Cir. 1986) and Cellophane, 351 You.S. within 395)). 57. Id. § step 1.eleven. not, the principles recognize that when “premerger factors is strongly suggestive of paired telecommunications . . . the Institution uses an amount much more reflective of one’s competitive price.” Id. (footnote excluded). 58. Select, elizabeth.g., Draw A great. Glick et al., Posting the new Merger Guidelines Market Test when you look at the Area 2 Times: Prospective Positives and you may Limits, 42 Antitrust Bull. 121, 145­44 (1997); Philip Nelson, Dominance Electricity, Markets Meaning, as well as the Cellophane Fallacy eight (letter.d.) (reading submission). 62. Find, age.g., Landes Posner, supra note 8, in the 960­61. Pick fundamentally George W. Equipping Willard F. Mueller, Brand new Cellophane Case as well as the The fresh new Battle, forty five Am. Econ. Rev. 30, 53­54 (1955). 63. Landes Posner, supra mention 8, during the 961 (footnote omitted); discover as well as, elizabeth.grams., Lawrence J. […]