With respect to the §2 component of the case, how did the government define the “relevant market”? What evidence was given to prove that Dentsply enjoys monopoly power in the market so defined? 3. Again with reference to the §2 complaint, how is the government claiming that Dentsply engaged in “willful maintenance” of its monopoly power? 4. Explain the relevance of the “market foreclosure” principal to this case. 5. How did Denstply violate §3 of the Clayton Act, according to the government?