Is that normal or is it because of his opinion piece?
Microsoft President Brad Smith is planning to meet with the Federal Trade Commission's three Democratic members on Wednesday in a last-ditch bid to keep the tech giant's blockbuster video-game deal from getting scrapped over antitrust concerns, The Post has learned.
Smith and a small group of his attorneys are slated to meet individually with FTC Chair Lina Khan — who is said to be skeptical of the tie-up and who this summer pledged to scrutinize the deal over its impact on workers — as well as Democratic commissioners Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, according to sources close to the situation.
On Sunday, The Post exclusively reported that at least one Democrat on the four-member panel has recently taken a sympathetic view of the merger — with insiders speculating it might be Slaughter — potentially paving the way for it to get approved. Republican FTC Commissioner Christine Wilson has already voiced support of the deal.
Sources said Microsoft's Smith is scrambling to win over the powerful panel in a hurry — partly because Khan is pregnant and expected to go on maternity leave next month.
"Chair Khan is expecting a baby in January and will take a short parental leave before quickly returning to her duties," FTC spokesperson Douglas Farrar said. "The idea that any possible law enforcement actions by the Commission could be affected by her pregnancy is sexist and absurd speculation with absolutely no basis in reality."
The FTC's commissioners are slated for a closed-door meeting on Thursday to discuss the merger and there's an outside chance they could vote on it, sources said.
The panel also could meet to vote on the deal later this month. Microsoft had believed the FTC would make its final ruling in the first quarter of 2023 but the FTC review has lately moved at a faster pace than it expected, the source said.
An Activision spokesman declined to comment. Microsoft also declined to comment.
Sources said Smith — who on Monday wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal arguing for the deal — will stress that Microsoft is now offering rival Sony a 10-year licensing deal for Activision games including "Call of Duty" on its PlayStation consoles, and that the games would be released to them at the same time it becomes available on Microsoft's Xbox.
Sony's concern is Microsoft by owning a leading console maker and a maker of popular video games could have too much market power.
Separately this week, the Communications Workers of America said it supported the deal as news broke that 300 workers at Microsoft gaming studio ZeniMax are voting this month on forming Microsoft's first union.
CWA said the merger would give Microsoft and Activision Blizzard workers a clear path to collective bargaining and unionization in what it considers a major Microsoft concession. The politically influential union is saying the deal is good for workers and they will be hurt if the FTC sues to block the merger.
As reported by The Post, a fellow Democrat supporting the Microsoft deal could create a difficult path to block the deal for FTC Chair Khan — who according to insiders has eyed Microsoft's deal as a major target as she looked to burnish her credentials as a trustbuster of Big Tech.
That's because a 2-2 vote would not only fail to block the deal, but also would result in it getting cleared without any major conditions imposed by a settlement, including the concessions it has recently pledged to Sony.
FTC's staff was reportedly close to recommending a suit to block the deal, but that was reportedly before the Microsoft floated its settlement offer.
Microsoft has agreed to pay $95 a share for Activision. Its shares were trading Tuesday at $76.11
Everyone in Canada is entitled to 52 weeks parental leave at 55% of their wages (with a cap). Some companies will top up the maternal/parental leave for varying periods (my spouse was 100% for 16 weeks). My company didn't begin offering parental leave top up (for the non-birthing parent) until after our second child so I missed out on being to able to double up, but at least I was able to take some vacation at the time.I would assume they're commenting on parental leave. The USA has notoriously poor rights regarding this. My wife is from Canada, and was shocked when she found out a lot of jobs don't offer standard parental leave or roughly 12 weeks. Some places in Canada offer 1 year of parental leave, although I don't know the specifics.
I would take that with a grain of salt. We only heard mention of COD repeatedly
God willing
I mean, we will truly see how much continued consolidation enables them to continue to compete, or, as Microsoft notes, the gaming industry will result in only those of scale being pertinent players, while the rest are reduced to niche players.
Both Sony and Microsoft are pursuing a hybrid approach for the distribution of their titles. Sony has demonstrated releasing first party titles onto PS+ on Day 1, just as Microsoft continues to sell games to gamers who do not subscribe to Game Pass. Sony just revamped their subscription service, so I expect there to be more Day 1 titles (both first party and third party) releases going forward - they've even begun marketing Day 1 releases on PS+.
But given the significantly reduced resources that Sony has at its disposal, they need to be more judicious in their approach to their model.
Given this is a stated need for acquiring the largest video game publisher, on top of the already ~23 studios, unless it's complete bullshit (I see quite a bit of 'Game Pass has gotta eat'), it seems that Sony will have quite a bit of difficulty until they're able to amass a similar horde of studios and IP, which doesn't seem likely.
As such, we're seeing them focus on a multitude of ventures and initiatives to carve out a differentiated experience for their ecosystem.
Probably a mistake by whoever wrote the article.
It's an NYP piece, I wouldn't take that to be 100% accurate. Also, it makes 0 sense for MS to make that investment and not get some exclusive content from new potential ABK IPS.
Yea, I was also wondering exactly this question. Now I'm wondering if they meant that they're going to meet with the Republican commissioner, as well? Cuz honestly, at least PRETEND like you're not locking out some members of the commission haha, even if they're actually somewhat irrelevant. "Only democrats get to take the meetings" would be a... wild... position to take.three other Democratic members... meaning Democratic FTC staff? or like members of the house/senate?
the article itself is from the NY Post which that tweet is referencing. The article said the 3 Dem commissioners, so I think they got the number wrong as that includes Khan herself.Yea, I was also wondering exactly this question. Now I'm wondering if they meant that they're going to meet with the Republican commissioner, as well? Cuz honestly, at least PRETEND like you're not locking out some members of the commission haha, even if they're actually somewhat irrelevant. "Only democrats get to take the meetings" would be a... wild... position to take.
Also, whatever article you posted is not written super well and has several errors.. (Assuming it's from the NY Post again?)
I mean they didn't say anything crazy, unless I missed it
I don't think is that serious. Considering that the Republican member is on board with the merger, it makes sense that he will meet with the other members who are not completely on board yet."Only democrats get to take the meetings" would be a... wild... position to take.
LOL incredible!
Yea, that's how it reads. Is that normal? Like I get that when we're talking about Congress and other purely political bodies, but.. iono. And yes, I recognize that FTC and other agencies are politically appointed. But these are positions that last not only past the President who appointed them, but even over multiple Presidents. Iono just weird (and perhaps why that other Republican just chose to resign - and probably take a more lucrative job elsewhere). But also not that big of a deal practically.the article itself is from the NY Post which that tweet is referencing. The article said the 3 Dem commissioners, so I think they got the number wrong as that includes Khan herself.
All the more reason for Brad Smith to want all of them there. This reads more like the Democrats boxing out the Republican than that this was a MS choice per se. Unless that Republican is incredibly toxic or counterproductive in some way.I don't think is that serious. Considering that the Republican member is on board with the merger, it makes sense that he will meet with the other members who are not completely on board yet.
Like others have said. Might want to temper expectations. Jason Schreier didn't write that article.
I don't see anything strange about it. the 3 commissioners up in the air are all the Democrat ones.LOL incredible!
Yea, that's how it reads. Is that normal? Like I get that when we're talking about Congress and other purely political bodies, but.. iono. And yes, I recognize that FTC and other agencies are politically appointed. But these are positions that last not only past the President who appointed them, but even over multiple Presidents. Iono just weird (and perhaps why that other Republican just chose to resign - and probably take a more lucrative job elsewhere). But also not that big of a deal practically.
Microsoft President Brad Smith is planning to meet with the Federal Trade Commission's three Democratic members on Wednesday in a last-ditch bid to keep the tech giant's blockbuster video-game deal from getting scrapped over antitrust concerns, The Post has learned.
It's the Post, so a little bit of sensationalism would be expected.Is it really "last-ditch"? This seems like one of potentially several remedies to get the deal underway, especially now that Microsoft is offering major concessions (10 year deal, union recognition will be popular with Democrats, etc.).
Eh. If this was MS's preference, then sure. Just seems weird to me. If this is business as usual at the FTC, then I've made my feelings known.I don't see anything strange about it. the 3 commissioners up in the air are all the Democrat ones.
I took that as just a case of good old journalistic liberty. At the end of the day, it is kind of the last ditch effort regardless of how close the FTC is to approving or suing. There won't be another time that Microsoft will be able to get in front of them before real decisions are made. So, while it makes it sound like they are desperate, it's probably more just that it's an incredibly important meeting and Smith is going to have to turn up the heat, if he can.Is it really "last-ditch"? This seems like one of potentially several remedies to get the deal underway, especially now that Microsoft is offering major concessions (10 year deal, union recognition will be popular with Democrats, etc.).
Im confused where you're confused hahaEh. If this was MS's preference, then sure. Just seems weird to me. If this is business as usual at the FTC, then I've made my feelings known.
But like I said, I recognize that it doesn't actually make a difference to the outcome.
It's definitely last ditch in the sense that the FTC is rumoured to be making a decision on December 8th. But otherwise yeah it's hard to parse how much of the article is based on the Post's reporting and how much is them just sprinkling in some spiceIs it really "last-ditch"? This seems like one of potentially several remedies to get the deal underway, especially now that Microsoft is offering major concessions (10 year deal, union recognition will be popular with Democrats, etc.).
I feel like every time some non gaming site writes "ten year licensing agreement for ABK content" people take it as non COD stuff lol. These journalists just don't know much about gaming and probably think all Activision makes is Call of Duty which is a fair assumption tbh
I mean they didn't say anything crazy, unless I missed it
All that was said is Brad Smith will meet with FTC tomorrow because Khan is about to go on leave and Microsoft wants the FTC's side finished before that happens
lol fair enough. To me, you'd talk to all of them at once. If one of the members was already convinced.. great. That's another supportive voice in the room. They can ask helpful questions (unless we know they can't). Right now, you're essentially talking to the one maybe unconvinced person on the panel (Khan is pretty clearly sticking to her guns on this one). Why would you fill that room with only the likely 2 voices that are actively trying to contradict everything you say? But anyway. I'm over it lol.Im confused where you're confused haha
The commission has 5 members max. One party can only have 3 commissioners. He's meeting with the Dems because the one R is already supportive so he's hashing it out with the doubters to appeal to them. Seems like a normal meeting to have as part of the merging party.
There's still time before the vote. A few weeks at least. What's happening soon is that the FTC STAFF are making their recommendation (likely lawsuit) to the commission. It's interesting that Smith is talking directly to the commissioners and not the staff at this point, of course. Sounds (guessing here) like they're all treating the staff recommendation as a done deal and just getting to the work beyond it.I feel like even getting an audience right before the vote is a positive for Microsoft. It might not come down in their favor but being the last one in the room to voice your side can never be a bad thing imo.
"Sony's concern is Microsoft by owning a leading console maker and a maker of popular video games could have too much market power."
This is so fucking ludicrous.
They chew their nails in worry as God of War out sells CoD."Sony's concern is Microsoft by owning a leading console maker and a maker of popular video games could have too much market power."
This is so fucking ludicrous.
no this is"Sony's concern is Microsoft by owning a leading console maker and a maker of popular video games could have too much market power."
This is so fucking ludicrous.
the CWA has been for the deal for like, half a year. The republican still approves of it.Wonder if the CWA being for the deal could make the republican rep flip on the deal.
Doubt. That's nothing new.Wonder if the CWA being for the deal could make the republican rep flip on the deal.
I don't think GoW outsells CoD in any dimension.
Wonder if the CWA being for the deal could make the republican rep flip on the deal.
I was hoping someone would go for that.
The Republicans are more worried about the direction of the agency than they are about unions in general, anyway. Or less charitably, blocking Lina Khan (or the perception of her activism) is more important than why.Wonder if the CWA being for the deal could make the republican rep flip on the deal.
Kinda sorry about the post i wrote since it wasn't at what i wanted to said . More about family priority ( not because it was a woman ).
any new/further details in there?Bloomberg is reporting the same thing as NY Post about the meeting with Khan so it's legit
Microsoft to Meet with FTC Chair Lina Khan on Activision Deal
www.bloomberg.com
A so-called last rites meeting between the companies and the FTC's commissioners –- who make the final call and vote on any agency actions -– is often one of the last steps before either a lawsuit or a settlement are filed.
Microsoft President Brad Smith and other company executives are expected to attend the meetings, the person said, asking not to be named discussing the confidential probe.
Imagine if Ballmer was still CEO and would be one of those going to that meeting lol