Contrary to my statement being "an interesting spin", your statement displays a total lack of understanding for antitrust law and patent law.
Worse than that, you don't even seem to understand that antitrust regulators aren't courts of law.
If you sue someone over patent infringement allegations, and as long as you satisfy some basic criteria (such as "Rule 11"), there will be a lawsuit. It's a given that the court will hear your case. Period. And it's only because you as the patent holder want to assert your rights, regardless of whether that particular case is good or bad for the economy at large, and for society.
By contrast, an antitrust complaint like the one TurboHercules brought against IBM (many months after the initial - even if then not yet totally specific - patent infringement threat) is lodged with a regulatory agency that doesn't have an obligation to follow up. They can always say there's no public interest in what you complain about. In that case, you could try to bring an antitrust lawsuit, and then you just satisfy some basic criteria and a court will hear the case. But if you ask an antitrust regulator to act, the regulatory agency will look at your complaint and its merits, and will compare it to other complaints and their merits, and will then decide to pursue only the most important issues, i.e., the ones that the economy at large, and society, have the greatest benefit from.
Depending on the jurisdiction, the antitrust regulator will either have to go to court at some point (unless a case is settled before) or, such as in the EU's case, the regulator may be in a position to impose remedies and fines, but all of that will be subject to review by a court of law if the affected company appeals.