{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02178217821782178, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007920792079207921, 'mean_word_length': 4.622222222222222, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A proposed rule of reason for vertical restraints on competition

In 1977 the Supreme Court held in the Sylvania I case that nonprice restrictions on competition contained in a manufacturer's contract with dealers' are to be adjudicated under the rule of reason rather than per se standard of the earlier Schwinn' decision. But the Court did not completely abandon the use of per se treatment for some types of vertical restraints; Justice Powell, writing for the majority, concluded that ". . . we do not