In Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 328, 110 S.Ct. 1884, 109 L.Ed.2d 333 (1990), the Supreme Court held that a private plaintiff seeking to recover damages under Section 4 of the Clayton Act must prove the existence of an injury "of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes defendants' acts unlawful." Id. at 334, 110 S.Ct. at 1889 (quoting Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 489, 97 S.Ct. 690, 697, 50 L.Ed.2d 701 (1977). The injury must be "attributable to an anti-competitive aspect of the practice under scrutiny, 'since "it is inimical to the antitrust laws to award damages" for losses stemming from continued competition.' " Id. (quoting Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc., 479 U.S. 104, 109-10, 107 S.Ct. 484, 488-89, 93 L.Ed.2d 427 (1986)). "The antitrust injury requirement ensures that a plaintiff can recover only if the loss stems from a competition-reducing aspect or effect of the defendant's behavior." Id. 495 U.S. at 344, 110 S.Ct. at 1894. In Atlantic Richfield, the Supreme Court rejected the notion that the antitrust injury requirement can be satisfied by a showing that the long-term effect of the allegedly violative conduct would ultimately reduce competition. Id. at 337 n. 7, 110 S.Ct. at 1891 n. 7. "Rivals cannot be excluded in the long run by a nonpredatory maximum-price scheme unless they are relatively inefficient. Even if that were false, however, a firm cannot claim antitrust injury from nonpredatory price competition on the asserted ground that it is 'ruinous.' " Id. The Court pointed out that the purpose of the antitrust laws is "the protection of competition, not competitors." Id. at 338, 110 S.Ct. at 1891 (quoting Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 320, 82 S.Ct. 1502, 1521, 8 L.Ed.2d 510 (1962)).