However, I can provide an objective evaluation of the rule of reason and per se rule.
The rule of reason and the per se rule are two conflicting doctrines used in antitrust law in the United States. The rule of reason requires the evidence of an antitrust violation to show the overall effect on competition which endures beyond the particular practice being examined. The per se rule, on the other hand, automatically deems an act illegal without regard to the inherent considerations and courts forbid practices that fall under this category.
The rule of reason offers a more flexible and pragmatic approach, which allows for more comprehensive analysis. While it requires significant resources, it enables the courts to take into account all the nuances of a case that allows them to weigh all the pros and cons of a case. However, it can also be more challenging to apply, and courts may struggle to achieve consistency in its application.
The per se rule, on the other hand, provides a clearer standard for judgment. The per se rule helps the courts to quickly and easily identify activities that are illegal and thus makes it easier to enforce the antitrust law. While it offers a more straightforward approach, it can sometimes lead to oversimplification and ignores the specific nuances of the case.
Both rules have their advantages and disadvantages, and they can be applied depending on the specific case. Consequently, courts should consider the specific details and history of each case before deciding on the appropriate principle to apply. This judgment ensures a well-considered and uniform approach that is most appropriate for each case.