Background: For many years, Bullock Corporation was a profitable company in a highly competitive U.S. domestic market for widgets. However, during the past decade it has suffered a tremendous decline in market share due to an invasion of widget sales from Korean and Chinese producers.

Question 2. When Bullock's new efforts to compete failed to generate increased sales or market share, it ultimately met with several of its closest U.S. competitors. Together they devised shared marketing plans to offset the Korean and Chinese competition. The result of this cooperation was two-fold: (1) the U.S. companies began to regain their market share at the expense of the foreign competitors, and (2) the overall price of widgets to U.S. consumers declined while the quality of service accompanying those sales actually increased. Discuss the legality of this new strategy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Can you help me to identify the legality in this case?

Thank you.