Fortunately for Rambus, the court held that engaging in deceptive conduct to avoid the latter alternative would not violate anticompetition law, even where the result was to create monopoly power. Or, in the more formalistic language of the Court, "the FTC failed to demonstrate that Rambus's conduct was exclusionary under settled principles of antitrust law". Meanwhile, there is an ongoing series of cases between Rambus and several implementers of the standards in question, in which Rambus alleges that those vendors colluded against Rambus in connection with the same process. Several of those vendors have already paid heavy fines to US regulators in settlement of similar charges. I have written very extensively on all of this, and you can read more than you will likely ever want to know by sampling from this list. As increasingly seems to be the be case these days when rutting rival vendors butt heads, the standard setting system has become the most notable and innocent victim of collateral damage.