This ruling, if upheld in the inevitable appeal, would have opened the door for a horde of follow-on suits, allowing both the FTC and various civil parties, including Intel's competitors and customers, to file suit against Intel for a variety of business practices. With Intel declared a monopolist, these cases would be halfway to victory before they even started. By signing the consent decree, Intel avoids this scenario, gaining a key legal victory. While the decree treats Intel as a monopolist, it does not legally apply that label. The consent decree also avoids setting a precedent for other companies.
Many companies have a dominant share of a particular market segment.
This is particularly prevalent in technology areas, due to the power of standardization. Microsoft, Cisco, and Adobe, for example, have the power to abuse their customers in the same way Intel did. Unlike a judge's ruling, the consent decree has no legal effect on these other vendors. The problem is that the Sherman Act and most subsequent case law define the relationship between a monopolist and its competitors, but they say little about how a monopolist can treat its customers. Whether the Sherman Act protects a customer from IP theft in this situation remains unclear.