I have the feeling that the court is going to lead us down the garden path, isn't it?

So first, putting aside what's really a side point in the case of whether because of McDonald's franchise structure, the restraint is vertical or horizontal.

really we're looking at the same question.

The ancillary versus naked restraint question is the same as the per se or rule of reason question here.

And what's weird about the ancillary restraints defense is that it essentially turns the rule of reason on its head.

So as we know, under the rule of reason, The plaintiff shows that the challenge restraint has an anti-competitive effect in a defined relevant market.

Then the burden shifts to the defendant to show that the pro-competitive justifications for the restraint outweighs those harms.

Brian, there's also a concurrence here, and it seems to kind of almost walk back a bit what the court's doing here, don't you think?