Dreazy

Member
Oct 25, 2018
2,023
The US Chamber of Commerce has filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking correspondence between the FTC and other regulators over the merger. The time frame for the Chamber's request is Dec. 1, 2021, to the present.

The request is not online yet, but it says this:

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, and 16 C.F.R. § 4.11, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ("Chamber") hereby requests the following information:

1. All records related to communications between the FTC and any and all foreign jurisdictions regarding Microsoft Corp.'s acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Inc. This request includes, but is not limited to, all such communications between or among the FTC and any and all non-U.S. agencies or authorities, and any press statements or drafts of press statements. The timeframe for the Chamber's request is December 1, 2021 to the present.

The public interest relating to the FTC's coordination with foreign authorities has already been demonstrated. And there is specifically public interest in mainstream media outlets regarding whether the FTC and foreign authorities coordinated in reviewing the Microsoft/Activision transaction. And the contribution to public understanding is likely to be significant, 16 C.F.R. §§ 4.8(e)(2)(i)(D), because the FTC has previously resisted public disclosure of its coordination with foreign antitrust authorities and has apparently not disclaimed the existence of any coordination with respect to the Microsoft/Activision transaction. Production of these records to the Chamber thus will respond to significant public interest where there has been insufficient public disclosure.


I guess that it will be published here during the day.

They already did the same with the Illumina/Grail case.

So good or bad for ?
 

BobLoblaw

This Guy Helps
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
8,360
I'm not opposed to greater transparency, but I have to wonder whether transparency is the Chamber's goal or the ability to drum up political angst against regulators for working across the pond.
Agreed, but asking for transparency in and of itself isn't bad. If it turns out that the FTC was pressuring foreign governments to block a deal for nefarious reasons, then that's information that should be available to the public.

Obviously, any confidential or privileged communications should remain so, but beyond that I can't see any harm in asking. Now, if they find some small innocuous communication and exaggerate it or try to use it as a political weapon, then we have a problem.
 

bsigg

Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,672
Microsoft probably wanted the performance reviews to see who exactly they should (at least try to) poach from Sony. They would've known who exactly did what and how much their compensation is to overpay them to comeover. Would've been very valuable to them but oh well.
tenor.gif
 

christocolus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
14,936
Interesting.

  • Sony needs to provide documents for Tao and Nishino as custodians.
  • Sony has to include predecessor custodians to current custodians. (I.e. a custodian that was in place Jan 1 2019 - Jan 1 2020 would need their files pulled, rather than just the current custodian that took place Jan 2 2020, if I'm understanding correctly).
  • Sony has to include their in-house antitrust laywer, Greg McCurdy's relevant files (external communications for this time period where McCurdy has been in his role).
  • Sony's request that things be limited to 2019 and sooner is granted, rather than Microsoft's request dating back to 2012.
  • Sony has to produce "All drafts of and Communications regarding SIE's President and CEO Jim Ryan's declaration titled 'SIE Declaration to FTC on MS-ABK Transaction"
  • Sony's request to quash the performance reviews is granted, as the judge does not see this as an employment case and employees have a privacy interest.
  • Sony has to produce "an executed copy of every Content licensing agreement You have entered into with any third-party publisher between Jan 1, [2019] and present."
    • This is interesting, though the original request was 2012, the date has been granted only to 2019 per above. Could have some juicy details here.
  • Idk what Exhibit H means but Sony's request with it is rejected.
😁

The US Chamber of Commerce has filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking correspondence between the FTC and other regulators over the merger. The time frame for the Chamber's request is Dec. 1, 2021, to the present.

The request is not online yet, but it says this:

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, and 16 C.F.R. § 4.11, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ("Chamber") hereby requests the following information:

1. All records related to communications between the FTC and any and all foreign jurisdictions regarding Microsoft Corp.'s acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Inc. This request includes, but is not limited to, all such communications between or among the FTC and any and all non-U.S. agencies or authorities, and any press statements or drafts of press statements. The timeframe for the Chamber's request is December 1, 2021 to the present.

The public interest relating to the FTC's coordination with foreign authorities has already been demonstrated. And there is specifically public interest in mainstream media outlets regarding whether the FTC and foreign authorities coordinated in reviewing the Microsoft/Activision transaction. And the contribution to public understanding is likely to be significant, 16 C.F.R. §§ 4.8(e)(2)(i)(D), because the FTC has previously resisted public disclosure of its coordination with foreign antitrust authorities and has apparently not disclaimed the existence of any coordination with respect to the Microsoft/Activision transaction. Production of these records to the Chamber thus will respond to significant public interest where there has been insufficient public disclosure.


I guess that it will be published here during the day.

They already did the same with the Illumina/Grail case.
It is getting really spicy. 😝
 

Sheepinator

Member
Jul 25, 2018
28,174
In case anyone isn't aware, the US Chamber of Commerce isn't a govt dept, though it probably sounds like it. It's a business organization, a lobbying group, the largest in the US.
 

LanceX2

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,833
That's fair, you view new IP differently. It sounds like you do view Final Fantasy, Street Fighter and Silent Hill as being stolen from Xbox. So long as you hold the same opinion of Elder Scrolls 6, Fallout 5, the next Doom or any legacy IP that doesn't come to Playstation the same way. I think consistency is important, it's what differentiates opinion from warring.


Any bethesda game that was on PS before should be there after.

But Sony shoots themselves on the foot with all these timed third parties.
 

MaulerX

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,713
Sony has to produce "an executed copy of every Content licensing agreement You have entered into with any third-party publisher between Jan 1, [2019] and present."

Four plus years (including the present) which obviously include everything they have already signed for the future. That is..... HUGE
 

rscardinals

Member
Feb 17, 2023
386
Let's put the Starfield thing to rest.

Had Microsoft not acquired Bethesda, Starfield would be coming to PS5, it may have even been exclusive to PS5 (for a minimum of a year).

Had Starfield announced the platforms they were targeting for release before they were acquired, Microsoft would have honored that commitment.

If you view Final Fantasy 16, Silent Hill 2, FF7r, SF5 or any other exclusive or timed exclusive as "being stolen" from Xbox, you have to view Starfield as being stolen from Playstation. The reverse is true too, if you are A-OK with these exclusivity deals that Playstation is making, you have to be A-OK with Microsoft making games exclusive.

For those upset that Starfield isn't coming to Playstation, it wouldn't make you feel any better had Microsoft outright bought exclusivity instead of acquiring Bethesda. So let's not put arbitrary rules on how exclusivity SHOULD be done.
AMEN!!!
 

vixolus

Prophet of Truth
Member
Sep 22, 2020
56,356
Four plus years (including the present) which obviously include everything they have already signed for the future. That is..... HUGE
It is. I have extreme doubts we will ever see them, but Microsoft likely will. Because Sony will provide the documents to Microsoft before any conclusion to the merger is reached probably.
 

Grakchawwaa

Member
Mar 10, 2022
471
Four plus years (including the present) which obviously include everything they have already signed for the future. That is..... HUGE

Going to be some HEAVY redacting going on. While some people expect ultra juicy stuff, I imagine most is boring contract stuff around "If we market your game, you cannot place it in a competing subscription platform for X months". Outside of super duper secret stuff, don't we think Sony/MS already know who has contract agreements with companies?
 

Madjoki

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,241
Microsoft probably wanted the performance reviews to see who exactly they should (at least try to) poach from Sony. They would've known who exactly did what and how much their compensation is to overpay them to comeover. Would've been very valuable to them but oh well. I guess they will settle with the 3rd party deals

That's quite a reach. While Microsoft maybe named as requester, they won't get to see any of papers anyways. Only law firm representing Microsoft. (excluding persons with any affiliation with Microsoft).


View: https://twitter.com/FOSSpatents/status/1631046629632401411?s=20

Ah so it seems like IF the trial in August is to happen (which, I would bet that the deal is either granted and this case is dropped before then, or MS abandons it due to the CMA or something, before then, to try and close it before July), then it will be likely publicized in trial, similar to Apple v Epic in some scenarios.


There's already a protective order, everything acquired from these will be sealed from public, Microsoft, Activision employees. (unless judges decide that something should be public later)
 
Oct 27, 2017
45,651
Seattle
So good or bad for ?


Good for Microsoft US Chamber of Commerce i believe supports the merger.

Due to the FTC being a public entity, they are beholden to the FOIA. Hope there are some good phone calls/emails in there. I requested a FOIA once, got a ton of document and spicy stuff..found a bunch of stuff that was unknown. All Public Entities should always watch what they say on official email / phones. Its all public record.
 

LD50

Banned
May 11, 2022
904
Definitely interested in what PlayStation has coming up from 3rd parties. That's gonna be cool to see, if we do get a chance to see it...
That's quite a reach. While Microsoft maybe named as requester, they won't get to see any of papers anyways. Only law firm representing Microsoft. (excluding persons with any affiliation with Microsoft), (unless judges decide that something should be public later)
Oh. Well, shucks.
 
OP
OP
Idas

Idas

Antitrusting By Keyboard
Member
Mar 20, 2022
2,064
MLex reports that after the extension MS has until March 16th to offer remedies to the EC.

The final deadline for all parties' responses/submissions with the CMA is just "March".

So, both are going to be extremely aligned by timing 😬

What happens if they provide no response. The merge is automatically approved?

Yes, it would get approved.

I think this could also be interpreted as applying more pressure on MS, given that the EC's decision is now beyond the second extension deadline for MS and ABK which will cost more to MS if deal fails.

Right, it's very unlikely that they are going to pull out before April 18th now.

This could be interesting considering what we know about the FTC and their goal of influencing the EC. Surprised Microsoft themselves didn't file this.

Yes, it should provide more context about what happened during the last quarter of 2022.

How soon might this come out? I'm SUPER interested in this, even if it's only external correspondence.

The FOIA request for the Illumina/Grail case was filed on February 4th, 2022 and the FTC responded on January 23rd, 2023. So, it can take a while. :s

So good or bad for ?

It shouldn't be relevant for the final outcome but it will provide more context about the regulatory process.
 

Daddy JeanPi

Prophet of Truth that's Corrupted by Vengeance
Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,108
Let's put the Starfield thing to rest.

Had Microsoft not acquired Bethesda, Starfield would be coming to PS5, it may have even been exclusive to PS5 (for a minimum of a year).

Had Starfield announced the platforms they were targeting for release before they were acquired, Microsoft would have honored that commitment.

If you view Final Fantasy 16, Silent Hill 2, FF7r, SF5 or any other exclusive or timed exclusive as "being stolen" from Xbox, you have to view Starfield as being stolen from Playstation. The reverse is true too, if you are A-OK with these exclusivity deals that Playstation is making, you have to be A-OK with Microsoft making games exclusive.

For those upset that Starfield isn't coming to Playstation, it wouldn't make you feel any better had Microsoft outright bought exclusivity instead of acquiring Bethesda. So let's not put arbitrary rules on how exclusivity SHOULD be done.
Starfield has never been on playstation so it wasn't stolen from anywhere.
 

chen17

Member
Oct 5, 2022
273
I have no problem with these exclusives since I have both consoles , whether they are permanent exclusives or limited time exclusives.
But the "limited time exclusive" FF7re is definitely an exception lol
 

Helmhold

Member
Dec 7, 2022
658
User Banned (3 days) and thread banned: Trolling, account still in junior phase
This whole thread is a bunch of xbox fanboy mad at Sony for doing the exact thing that Microsoft does, but be more effective at it, and then happy for Microsoft to spend almost 100 billion to catch up and put a stick in sonys eye. And then the thread is just highbrow console warring.

Honestly this should really be a thread where only straight news gets posted and not Neverending bitching by either side.

And I say this as someone who has twice as many xbox consoles than anything else and gamepass ultimate.
 

bsigg

Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,672
There's already a protective order, everything acquired from these will be sealed from public, Microsoft, Activision employees. (unless judges decide that something should be public later)
If anyone is curious about this:


The FOIA request for the Illumina/Grail case was filed on February 4th, 2022 and the FTC responded on January 23rd, 2023. So, it can take a while. :s
Wonder what the FTC's reasoning was to get past the 20 business day window.

Under the law, all federal agencies are required to respond to a FOIA request within 20 business days, unless there are "unusual circumstances." This time period generally begins when the request is received by the FOIA office of the Department of Justice component that maintains the records sought.
www.justice.gov

Responding to Requests

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact [email protected] if you have any questions about the archive site.
 

Deleted member 93062

Account closed at user request
Banned
Mar 4, 2021
24,767
This is true, but that you could say that about the whole of Era no one wants to get banned but we also want to defend our opinions.

I can tell you now when Sony eventually buys SE expect the exact same reactions by opposite sides.
I mean that argument has already been laid out by a few in this thread. Sony has a close relationship with Square so acquiring them isn't bad, whereas Xbox is acquiring companies who they don't have continual exclusive deals with.
 

T0kenAussie

Member
Jan 15, 2020
5,174
This whole thread is a bunch of xbox fanboy mad at Sony for doing the exact thing that Microsoft does, but be more effective at it, and then happy for Microsoft to spend almost 100 billion to catch up and put a stick in sonys eye. And then the thread is just highbrow console warring.

Honestly this should really be a thread where only straight news gets posted and not Neverending bitching by either side.

And I say this as someone who has twice as many xbox consoles than anything else and gamepass ultimate.
while I would love the thread to be clinical it would also strip the nuance from trying to understand some of these bankers market definitions we have been seeing or the nascent market concerns for instance

Tbh I am really struggling to understand the first paragraph, is Microsoft were doing the same thing as Sony they wouldn't have had to make gamepass as a circuit breaker to try and get actual marketing contracts

I do hope some more of these Sony deals leak just to see the noncompetes and other side things that give Sony an effective advantage of control in their party management
 

LD50

Banned
May 11, 2022
904
I mean that argument has already been laid out by a few in this thread. Sony has a close relationship with Square so acquiring them isn't bad, whereas Xbox is acquiring companies who they don't have continual exclusive deals with.
Even if that reality was accepted, to be clear: the exact same thing would happen as in this thread, because gamers do not want to (potentially) permanently lose access to content they've been getting historically without M&A.
 

Flame Lord

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,807
I mean that argument has already been laid out by a few in this thread. Sony has a close relationship with Square so acquiring them isn't bad, whereas Xbox is acquiring companies who they don't have continual exclusive deals with.

Bethesda had been on PC for years before making their first console (ES) game for Xbox, then Oblivion was exclusive for a year, Skyrim and F3 had a marketing deal with them, and their games in general ran like ass on the PS3. Last gen was really the first time one of their games were viable on the PS. I associated Bethesda with Xbox for a while, so I don't see how you can claim they have no relationship.
 

Deleted member 93062

Account closed at user request
Banned
Mar 4, 2021
24,767
Bethesda had been on PC for years before making their first console (ES) game for Xbox, then Oblivion was exclusive for a year, Skyrim and F3 had a marketing deal with them, and their games in general ran like ass on the PS3. Last gen was really the first time one of their games were viable on the PS. I associated Bethesda with Xbox for a while, so I don't see how you can claim they have no relationship.
It's not my argument.
 
Oct 25, 2017
17,945
So that ends the possibility of using the EC's results to get some potential leeway with the CMA.

Microsoft will get results from both at the same time and have to manage the outcome to the best of their ability.

I don't think it is a coincidence that the EC and CMA's final results will come at the same time either.
 

LD50

Banned
May 11, 2022
904
Bethesda had been on PC for years before making their first console (ES) game for Xbox, then Oblivion was exclusive for a year, Skyrim and F3 had a marketing deal with them, and their games in general ran like ass on the PS3. Last gen was really the first time one of their games were viable on the PS. I associated Bethesda with Xbox for a while, so I don't see how you can claim they have no relationship.
I think that's generally why most gamers, while shocked, didn't do much complaining. If you were strictly a PS gamer (or Nintendo) you were used to shoddy ports or nothing at all. Bethesda's lineage has always involved Microsoft and Xbox to some degree.

It was always a sensible and natural progression, at least in my eyes. Losing Arkane for multiplats sucks but how could you argue against the obvious symbiosis?

The closest similarity I could see is Insomniac. Or Monolith.
So that ends the possibility of using the EC's results to get some potential leeway with the CMA.

Microsoft will get results from both at the same time and have to manage the outcome to the best of their ability.

I don't think it is a coincidence that the EC and CMA's final results will come at the same time either.
I have a good feeling about it. Why take so long, with extra work days, to come to an affirmative decision?
 
Last edited:

oofouchugh

Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,025
Night City
This whole thread is a bunch of xbox fanboy mad at Sony for doing the exact thing that Microsoft does, but be more effective at it, and then happy for Microsoft to spend almost 100 billion to catch up and put a stick in sonys eye. And then the thread is just highbrow console warring.

Honestly this should really be a thread where only straight news gets posted and not Neverending bitching by either side.

And I say this as someone who has twice as many xbox consoles than anything else and gamepass ultimate.

I honestly don't give a shit about any of the exclusivity nonsense going on, I just know a lot of devs that work at ABK studios that are desperate for even a chance of a leadership shakeup. No one is happy with any of the clowns in charge and even if it means throwing c-suite people out with golden parachutes it is worth it just to get them the fuck out.
 

Lowrys

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,669
London
So that ends the possibility of using the EC's results to get some potential leeway with the CMA.

Microsoft will get results from both at the same time and have to manage the outcome to the best of their ability.

I don't think it is a coincidence that the EC and CMA's final results will come at the same time either.
Another way of looking at it is they have more time to come up with solutions that may be acceptable to both EC and CMA.
 

Dingo

Member
Jul 19, 2022
785
I'm betting with less then two months to go.

They skim by with behavioural remedys.The EC and CMA will be looking at each other's homework I don't think they will work in silos.

Divesture is a seemingly big no from MS so their just bulldozing for behavioral talks. So do or die baby!

I know it would be a shitshow but a betting thread would be funny.

Also its inteesting that the EC is alot more open to behaviour like solutions but pushed their time frame back to the CMA's.

Both block? Or something else.

The last article by the EC head honcho about nonone should be running to make quick judgements over this deal is the most interesting one in the last few pages.
 
Last edited:

LilScooby77

Member
Dec 11, 2019
11,261
Did anyone follow the Disney/fox merger? Was it anything like this in terms of fun drama (who is disneys competitor if any that was complaining) or anything? I missed all discussion on that merger.
 

arsene_P5

Prophet of Regret
Member
Apr 17, 2020
15,438
Would be a shame if the exact terms and conditions of every single third party moneyhat leaked :)
On one hand I'd want nothing to leak, because it could be potentially harmful to parties involved and less importantly it could ruin suprises for gamers. On the other hand it would be a opportunity to simply learn more about these kind of deals as a consumer. For example, how much do companies pay to get certain franchises? How long are some of the deals? Are there any conditions like the cross play rule we've learned about in the Epic lawsuit iirc? There is just so much we don't know yet about these deals in general.
 
Last edited:

Rndom Grenadez

Prophet of Truth
Banned
Dec 7, 2017
5,695
The cost of having CoD on GamePass would be all the lost sales on XBox and PC that would have normally bought the game. So for Sony to get it on PS+, they would need to at the very lesst cover those lost sales from Playstation owners
Exactly. And this is why it is nonsense to think Sony wouldn't be charged additionally to what they would lose with Gamepass. It's a nonsense argument to suggest that Sony wouldn't have to pay more than what they would lose from Gamepass.

Yes, the provisional deadline for the decision from the EC has been extended two weeks: April 25th

Remedy talks have officially started :p

PS: the final report from the CMA has to be published on April 26th :S
Damn. Let's get this shit closed before Diablo 4 comes out.
 

Theonlytman2

Member
Jan 16, 2023
217
Did anyone follow the Disney/fox merger? Was it anything like this in terms of fun drama (who is disneys competitor if any that was complaining) or anything? I missed all discussion on that merger.
It really wasn't all that dramatic. Disney got approval from the US fairly quickly, and same for the EU. Ironically enough, it was Brazil that was the biggest opponent due to sports control under Disney, where as it's reverse for this merger. Disney was already the market leader of the film industry and regulators were all "yeah, just a regular merger" despite Disney having a new 40% control of the box office and almost guaranteeing first place every year. Compare that to Microsoft + ABK having 11-12% of the gaming industry being the end of the world to these regulators.
 

HonestAbe

Member
May 19, 2020
1,932
Did anyone follow the Disney/fox merger? Was it anything like this in terms of fun drama (who is disneys competitor if any that was complaining) or anything? I missed all discussion on that merger.

Kinda of but it was pretty cut and dry regarding the sports network potential monopoly (ESPN/Fox Sports).

Funny thing is the Fox Sports networks they had to divest were purchased in a joint venture and rebranded as Bally Sports. That parent company recently failed to make interest payments and could potentially file for bankruptcy. Something similar was stated about this somewhere —about the risk of going too far with divestures where it could pose such a risk to the market or divested companies.