Where $AB$ is the product of the sets and $A,B \in \mathbb{R^+}$.
Since $A,B$ are bounded above sup $A$ and sup $B$ exist. Let $\alpha = $ sup $A$ and $\beta = $ sup $B$. This implies $\forall a \in A$ and $\forall b \in B$ $a \leq \alpha$ and $b \leq \beta$. Then $ab \leq \alpha\beta$ because $a,b > 0$. Thus $ab$ is bounded above and sup $AB$ exists and sup $AB \leq \alpha\beta$. \ We now show sup $AB \geq \alpha\beta$. \ Let $\varepsilon > 0$ then $\exists a \in A$ s.t. $\alpha - \varepsilon < a \leq \alpha$ and $\exists b \in B$ s.t. $\beta - \varepsilon < b \leq \beta$. So: \begin{equation*} (\alpha-\varepsilon)(\beta-\varepsilon) < ab \leq \alpha\beta \text{ since } a,b,\varepsilon > 0 \end{equation*} \begin{equation*} = \alpha\beta-\varepsilon(\alpha+\beta-\varepsilon) < ab \leq \alpha\beta \end{equation*}
I spoke with my professor today about this and he suggested I show that $\varepsilon$ is sufficiently small to proceed. I'm not sure exactly how to write this detail.
EDIT: I was meant to show what $\varepsilon$ was bounded by to proceed. The proof below realizes this idea. Feedback is welcome and appreciated.
Since $A,B$ are bounded above sup $A$ and sup $B$ exist. Let $\alpha = $ sup $A$ and $\beta = $ sup $B$. This implies $\forall a \in A$ and $\forall b \in B$ $a \leq \alpha$ and $b \leq \beta$. Then $ab \leq \alpha\beta$ because $a,b > 0$. Thus $ab$ is bounded above, sup $AB$ exists and sup $AB \leq \alpha\beta$. Let $\varepsilon > 0$ then $\exists a \in A$ s.t. $\alpha - \varepsilon < a \leq \alpha$ and $\exists b \in B$ s.t. $\beta - \varepsilon < b \leq \beta$. So: \begin{equation*} (\alpha-\varepsilon)(\beta-\varepsilon) < ab \leq \alpha\beta \end{equation*} \begin{equation*} = \alpha\beta-(\varepsilon\alpha+\varepsilon\beta-\varepsilon^2) < ab \leq \alpha\beta \end{equation*} Since $ab$ is bounded above by $\alpha\beta$ we have $ab \leq \text{ sup}(AB)$. We let $\varepsilon' = \varepsilon\alpha+\varepsilon\beta-\varepsilon^2 > 0 $ so $\forall(0 < \varepsilon' < \alpha+\beta)$ we have $\alpha\beta-\varepsilon'< ab < \text{ sup}(AB) \implies \alpha\beta \leq \text{ sup}(AB) + \varepsilon' \implies \alpha\beta \leq \text{ sup}(AB)$ by ``elbow room''.
Proceeding with your argument:
$$\alpha \beta -\varepsilon(\alpha+\beta -\varepsilon)<ab\le \alpha \beta$$
and this is true for every $\varepsilon>0$. Now let $\eta >0$ be arbitrary, and put $\varepsilon = \min \left \{\frac{2\eta}{\alpha+\beta} , \frac{\alpha+\beta}{2}\right \}$. It follows that:
$$\alpha+\beta-\varepsilon\ge\frac{\alpha+\beta}{2}\implies -\varepsilon(\alpha+\beta-\varepsilon)\ge-\varepsilon \left (\frac{\alpha+\beta}{2}\right )$$
Hence:
$$\alpha\beta -\varepsilon \left (\frac{\alpha+\beta}{2}\right )<ab$$
By our choice of $\varepsilon$:
$$\alpha\beta <\varepsilon \left (\frac{\alpha+\beta}{2}\right )+ab \le \eta +ab$$
Since $\eta >0$ is arbitrary, the conclusion follows.