The Seventh Circuit's opinion and the book's discussion of JTC Petroleum highlight how colluding firms can employ exclusionary conduct to prevent erosion of their cartel by non-participating rivals. Suppose instead that there were only two road contractors: Piasa, a dominant firm, and JTC, which did not want to charge as high a price as Piasa would like. Suppose further that Piasa acted alone in soliciting the asphalt producers to refuse to deal with JTC, in order to raise road contracting prices. Would the economic consequences be any different than if Piasa were acting together with other members of the road contractor's cartel to exclude JTC? If not -- if the economic harms from exclusionary conduct by a dominant firm would be similar to the economic harms from exclusionary conduct by several road contractors working together -- should antitrust law treat the two situations differently