If it did, why not file an injunction? Why did they rush it right when they talked to the EU?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
I'm pretty sure you actually can't just run whatever you want on GeForce Now. I've seen people trying to use it for tasks that need more grunt than their computer has and ending up disappointed.
By "non-gaming software", I don't just mean Netflix or a web browser. I'm talking things like Microsoft office, art tools, advanced video editors, programming tools, so on. You can't plug a tablet into your PlayStation and draw something in Photoshop, edit together an hour-long video essay on your Xbox, or install a Rust compiler and IDE on your Switch to start building web apps. You can't just do whatever with a console platform like you can with a PC.
What about indie games? Like, games legitimately made by one or two people, that might only be on Itchio. And most strategy/simulation games. And those casual .io browser games that have a multi-million dollar market. Why does a game have to be "popular" to count towards defining markets, and what the heck does that even mean? It feels like an arbitrary distinction, of course the console and PC gaming libraries are going to look very similar if the only games you see are the ones that get threads on here, or have TV ads, or have whatever it is that makes a game "popular".
I feel like I'm in one of those conversations where someone who's never really touched PC gaming asks about the Steam Deck or whatever. "What're ya gonna do when there's more current gen only games?" "What're ya gonna do if big publishers keep putting out crap ports?" Like, there's more games out there than just what you see being talked about.
The tenor in the FossPatents articles related to this case, specifically when discussing Sony's role in it, is pretty bizarre. Too much emotional editorialization.
They're asking for a lot more than that. The subpoena is incredibly broad with a very small window of time for Sony to respond in.
They're asking for a lot more than that. The subpoena is incredibly broad with a very small window of time for Sony to respond in.
Am I missing something? That's talking about the FTC's subpoena, not the one that Microsoft set forth. Sony had a long time to do Microsoft's, they even got three time extensions for it. Now Microsoft blocked their fourth extension, and it seems like the judge is going to side with Microsoft.
I'm sure they provided some data to regulators. Of course, if it was cherry-picked or misleading, then I know I wouldn't want to be forced to send everything. Not saying they did, but if the numbers don't match, then that would be a pretty big issue.
It's little too late to weaken anything. CMA is in the proof reading portion probably of their statement. They aren't going to go back in change anything because of FTC shenanigans
From what I'm reading (I could be mistaken), it seems like the motion to quash is the latest response to Microsoft's subpoena.
Do they not contain the same scope of information requested in the Microsoft subpoena?
I do agree, though, that if this is requested from the FTC and most of the information provided will not be usable outside of this process, there should no problem providing what the FTC wants.
Well Sony's argument was how Call Of Duty being owned by MS would destroy their business and they played the foreclosure cards.
Its only right for MS to ask for data regarding both of these things, which if they have to provide some of it is going to go public but heavily redacted.
Or we might get some more nuggets like the Apple vs Epic suit.
Based on what Sony is doing right now, it doesn't exactly look great for them if they refuse to co-operate with both MS and the FTC.
The third party deals and all that is needed considering MS has been filing about anti-gamepass clauses and PS's moneyhatting of big titles.
I believe Sony is fighting both of them:
Thankless Sony is unwilling to comply with Federal Trade Commission's subpoena over Microsoft-ActivisionBlizzard merger, at least in its original form
This is counterintuitive. One would think that Sony's PlayStation chief Jim Ryan has a Lina Khan poster above his bed because the Federal Tr...
Just to clarify things as far we understand it, we don't know know what the FTC asked for. The deadline for that one is now the 15th February.
The MS one felt overzealous but that's what lawyers do. It's also potential only one sides characterisation of the request. I really don't think MS wants users PII data here but I think they do want demographic + game played data.
I would say that they are delaying the ftc request and reserving the right to fight it.I believe Sony is fighting both of them:
Thankless Sony is unwilling to comply with Federal Trade Commission's subpoena over Microsoft-ActivisionBlizzard merger, at least in its original form
This is counterintuitive. One would think that Sony's PlayStation chief Jim Ryan has a Lina Khan poster above his bed because the Federal Tr...www.fosspatents.com
Ah, ok. Thanks.
Since we didn't even know FTC subpoenaed Sony for information until today(?), it stands to reason that whatever info would be provided would be less prone to corporate espionage. I guess they're trying to hold out until CMA's decision.
I often think that one unstated premise of the "I hope the FTC blocks this deal" thought process is basically an admission that no one has any faith that Congress can fix anything, lol. Which is understandable! Like, "being more critical of big tech" is obviously a good default assumption to have, in a general sense, so I don't have any problem with them "doing their job", but if the issue is with things like Facebook having too much power or whatever, or Microsoft having too much money, or tech companies doing layoffs, or all of the other ills of big corporations, there's like a million other direct things that can be done to address that...but unfortunately, those million other things require a heavily bought off and out of touch Congress.
So instead, a lot of that correct and rational political anger gets farmed out to the executive branch (and by extension, judges nominated by the executive branch), because that's the only thing people feel like they have any sort of control over (which is why everyone votes in presidential elections, and relatively fewer vote in midterms). No one thinks Congress is capable of anything positive, so maybe we can just get the FTC to block things that look bad (regardless of it's actual material effect on the video game industry), and we can finally get a win after being beaten down for the past 50 years. So Activision remaining third party is therefore a "win" against big tech, even though as I've mentioned numerous times, it's not like Bobby Kotick is our comrade running some socialist co-op that's being destroyed by the evil megacorporation, lol.
Hell, I'm kinda like this myself with the student debt stuff as another "action that activists want the executive branch to do because Congress won't do anything.". No one thinks Congress is gonna pass a law to address it, so pressure was put on Biden and an executive order instead. Though at least in that case, you could kinda make a legal argument that currently existing law put federal student loans under the purview of the executive branch, and therefore it's worthwhile to try out an executive branch-only fix (might be a stretch, but imo one that was worth pursuing). And of course, I'd also argue student debt is a more serious issue than "Playstation-only players might not be able to play Activision games in the future". But overall, it's hard to see the legal or material argument ("theory of harm" is the phrase I see over and over again) is against Microsoft/Activision beyond just some general "high dollar amounts are bad, and exclusive content is bad, but I'm not gonna define which high dollar amounts, and status quo exclusive content is fine" thought process.
So instead, a lot of that correct and rational political anger gets farmed out to the executive branch (and by extension, judges nominated by the executive branch), because that's the only thing people feel like they have any sort of control over (which is why everyone votes in presidential elections, and relatively fewer vote in midterms). No one thinks Congress is capable of anything positive, so maybe we can just get the FTC to block things that look bad (regardless of it's actual material effect on the video game industry), and we can finally get a win after being beaten down for the past 50 years. So Activision remaining third party is therefore a "win" against big tech, even though as I've mentioned numerous times, it's not like Bobby Kotick is our comrade running some socialist co-op that's being destroyed by the evil megacorporation, lol.
Hell, I'm kinda like this myself with the student debt stuff as another "action that activists want the executive branch to do because Congress won't do anything.". No one thinks Congress is gonna pass a law to address it, so pressure was put on Biden and an executive order instead. Though at least in that case, you could kinda make a legal argument that currently existing law put federal student loans under the purview of the executive branch, and therefore it's worthwhile to try out an executive branch-only fix (might be a stretch, but imo one that was worth pursuing). And of course, I'd also argue student debt is a more serious issue than "Playstation-only players might not be able to play Activision games in the future". But overall, it's hard to see the legal or material argument ("theory of harm" is the phrase I see over and over again) is against Microsoft/Activision beyond just some general "high dollar amounts are bad, and exclusive content is bad, but I'm not gonna define which high dollar amounts, and status quo exclusive content is fine" thought process.
That's Florian. Always been, since he came to fame during the Apple vs. Samsung case back in early 2010's.
We found out about the FTC subpoena on the 1st Feb, they filed the motion to delay on the 31st Jan. FTC subpoenad Sony on the 20th Jan.
But yeah, I suspect that there is some delay tactics till the CMA/EC info comes out in case they don't have to worry about this. That would require MS dropping the deal quite soon after those decisions.
Information they requested is absurd? What ? Sony is the one claiming them losing COD would basically cripple their company, so now MS an the FTC wants Information to back up those claims it's too much ? Lol.
I wonder if Sony is worried about Microsoft getting documents that could help them with EC/CMA before their final decision.
Sony did say that this would pretty much cause them so much damage they wouldn't be able to compete, the industry as a whole would be massively impacted, independent developers would suffer, they brought in Windows, Cloud compute, Nintendo don't count and probably more im missing. So yeah they're gonna need some information to see if those claims from Sony can be true, not quite sure how Sony knows that the entire industry will be under threat and how independent studios would suffer. I found it weird that part as if Sony was the custodian of the gaming industry.
Precisely they are also doing it to the ftc. Who practically brought this case in defense of Sony (even though we know it's all politics) Sony knows there full of shit an data would prove otherwise lol
also can't forget in court microsoft has the right of defending it's position and it must know the facts of what they are defending
I know it's been thrown around much in this thread, but 'cripple' or anything along those lines is overstating what Sony said.
I don't know exactly what the FTC requested, but most that have seen the amount and scope of information that Microsoft requested would deem it absurd, yes.
Just as an aside, I will no longer respond to posts with 'lol', 'rofl', 'lmao' or the like in it. No offense, it just doesn't feel like we're conversing with respect when that is unnecessarily typed up.
I'm going to look up the direct quote because I'm almost positive that this is an exaggeration of what was stated.
Edit: From what I've seen searching for 5 minutes, yeah, it's a conflation. Sony has said Battlefield cant compete with COD, not that this deal would render them unable to compete.
Sony Responds to Microsoft's Call of Duty Deal, States Battlefield Can't Compete and PS+ "Lags Behind" Xbox Game Pass
Sony has responded to Microsoft's deal regarding a 10-year contract with Call of Duty, stating facts about its services and competition
www.google.com
Sony says EA's ‘Battlefield’ series can’t compete with ‘Call of Duty’
"Other publishers do not have the resources or expertise to match its success," said Sony
www.nme.com
Last edited:
This is mostly on AI but expect a couple of questions on the acquisition for sure
I think this is mostly going to be about the ChatGPT stuff. If he mentions Activision at all he's probably just going to reiterate his confidence in the deal going through.
This will be related to Bing and ChatGPT, they might ask about the deal but the extent of the response will be the same as when Phil or Bobby are asked about it, confident it will go through.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24347781/STK095_Microsoft_03.jpg)
Microsoft’s ChatGPT event live blog
Microsoft is holding a surprise in-person event where it’s likely to demo a version of Bing with ChatGPT integrated and much more.
www.theverge.com
It's more granular than that. They're willing to provide some info, and have apparently been providing some info in parallel with the negotiations they previously were having on discovery, but presumably based on the new motion there is other info they are less comfortable giving that they'll claim is irrelevant to the case. And they couldn't come to agreement with MS about it. Ultimately a judge will decide, and Sony will have to abide with that.
Probably the vast majority of the discussion was Bing and ChatGPT and a few words to continue to show MS's confidence in the deal
They should have all the data handy because without the data, how do they know how bad this acquisition will hurt them?
OP
OP
New report from MLex, with statements from Microsoft's top competition lawyer, Rima Alaily:
- She says that concerns about Big Tech companies expanding their "ecosystems" through acquisitions need to be "disciplined and rigorous".
- She urged antitrust regulators not to "demonize the very idea of an ecosystem," so long as it does not harm consumers.
- She gave the example of Microsoft's Windows PC operating system. Windows provides "an opportunity for thousands of developers, of businesses, of hardware suppliers to build around that and create new businesses, new technologies and drive growth. Most of the value of the ecosystem goes to these third parties, not to Microsoft, she said.
- She hoped such theories would not be used "in a blunt way to prevent large technology companies from expanding their business and entering new markets, just because they are large." She believes that sometimes large tech companies are "best placed to challenge the incumbent" on a market, and can be capable of driving competition and innovation. Challenging that may mean consumers could lose out on the benefits.
- She also said that authorities ought to be "measured and thoughtful" and try to understand whether there is a "mechanism for harm" such as tying or self-preferencing or the "leveraging" of one market to benefit another.
This is coming from this podcast, Jammin Digital, where Rima Alaily was interviewed. It's 30 minutes long, so there has to be more.
Haha! That was an honest mistake, I'm not an agent of chaos. :p xD I read the document too fast, I posted it here, went to sleep and then I fixed it in the morning. But it was too late :s
- She says that concerns about Big Tech companies expanding their "ecosystems" through acquisitions need to be "disciplined and rigorous".
- She urged antitrust regulators not to "demonize the very idea of an ecosystem," so long as it does not harm consumers.
- She gave the example of Microsoft's Windows PC operating system. Windows provides "an opportunity for thousands of developers, of businesses, of hardware suppliers to build around that and create new businesses, new technologies and drive growth. Most of the value of the ecosystem goes to these third parties, not to Microsoft, she said.
- She hoped such theories would not be used "in a blunt way to prevent large technology companies from expanding their business and entering new markets, just because they are large." She believes that sometimes large tech companies are "best placed to challenge the incumbent" on a market, and can be capable of driving competition and innovation. Challenging that may mean consumers could lose out on the benefits.
- She also said that authorities ought to be "measured and thoughtful" and try to understand whether there is a "mechanism for harm" such as tying or self-preferencing or the "leveraging" of one market to benefit another.
This is coming from this podcast, Jammin Digital, where Rima Alaily was interviewed. It's 30 minutes long, so there has to be more.
Haha! That was an honest mistake, I'm not an agent of chaos. :p xD I read the document too fast, I posted it here, went to sleep and then I fixed it in the morning. But it was too late :s
Wasn't Sony the one throwing around the term "foreclosure" if they lost COD? FTC asked to prove that, Sony said no.
Somebody brought up foreclosure.
Foreclosure as in stopping the release of Call of Duty on PlayStation. Not put PlayStation out of business.
Thank you for your responses to give me a better understanding of the current situation
Can't provide evidence of harm when there is none. The plot thickens.
I've been reading this thread for months but never posted on it. I have thoughts, but first a few disclosures:
My background is that I'm an Attorney in the United States of America, and an investor. During times where I expect the stock market to fall, I typically analyze merger arbitrage plays and look for ones that appear, based on the available information to present an extremely favorable risk/reward payoff, and invest heavily in those. To determine the risk/reward I look at the premium that will be received if the deal goes through, the relevant contracts, the likely application of antitrust laws to the transaction, the fair valuation of the stock if a deal falls through, the public statements of the parties involved, and any other relevant factor specific to that transaction. I sold my broad based investments in early January 2022, in anticipation of the market collapse. I eventually threw that money into Twitter, and held it to the close of that transaction. Soon after that, I dumped the proceeds into Activision/Blizzard/King, where I still sit heavily invested. I don't believe the deal will close because I'm invested there, but I did invest there because I believed the deal would close. Actually, I am more skeptical that the deal will close now than I was when I invested. With those disclosures having been made, I have dedicated substantial thought to this transaction specifically, and to the merger process generally, and want to share some of my thoughts.
This deal will close or not, almost exclusively based on the decision of the CMA in the UK for three reasons, as follows:
1. The FTC's case has no legal merit, and Microsoft appears more than willing to spend the resources necessary to close over their objections, and fully litigate the matter if necessary, unless the issue is rendered moot by another antitrust authority blocking the transaction.
2. The EC is far more open to behavioral remedies than other regulators, and Microsoft appears willing to accept substantial behavioral remedies, which makes it more than likely that a deal will ultimately be reached on that front, if the process clears the CMA.
3. The CMA has unique power. They are not bound by the same flavor of judicial oversight as the other major antitrust agencies. As an attorney this seems incredibly problematic to me, but that doesn't change what it is. In the UK, the CMA's decision will generally only be challengeable on the grounds that they made a decision that was wholly illogical, or a process which was illegal. Even in those cases, it is generally remanded back to the CMA for further consideration. There is legal weight to a decision by the CMA far beyond that of a decision by the FTC or EC, particularly in cases such as this where a party defending the transaction has the funds and the willingness to litigate thoroughly.
It is hard to filter out what news is real, and infer from that the basis thereof. For example, Bloomberg reported that the FTC had filed a request for a preliminary injunction in Federal Court the same day as an earlier phone call with the EC. No news has mentioned what US District Court that request was ultimately filed in. By now, even if it was filed under seal, there should be a publicly available, if somewhat redacted, version of that document. I should be able to see it on PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records, a system where, for a small per page fee, one can access pretty much all unsealed court records ). So should any legal reporter. The only conclusion I can draw was that there was no such filing made that day.
Recently it was reported, and much discussed here, that Microsoft expected the CMA to oppose the transaction in Phase 2. There are at least four possible reasons for this, one of which should concern anyone interested in this transaction. One explanation is that it is incorrect reporting. Given the claims of a request for an injunction by the FTC, I can't fully discount that possibility. It is possible that Microsoft is just trying to lower expectations somewhat for some tactical purpose, or that these were just the personal views of a particular person the reporter talked to. It is possible that the thought process was simply that the FTC objected, and the EC objected, so the CMA would probably object too. If I were sure that one of these explanations was the real one, I would accord them zero weight and move on. The fourth possible explanation, however, concerns me, as follows:
Among the many issues that the CMA balances, it balances a concern for keeping trade secrets secret against the importance of revealing information forming the basis of its decision. One way that it balances these things in cases likely to involve trade secrets is sometimes sending its factual findings to parties involved, so that they can look through them and see if they include things that the parties assert are trade secrets which should be withheld from disclosure. The CMA will then look at the arguments for whether these issues are in fact a trade secret, and also see if disclosure is necessary because they are part of the "gist" of the CMA's case. It will then decide on disclosure. This means sometimes, the parties will see a factual background that is being put in a decision before the decision itself comes out.
Cases are about applying the law to the facts. How you describe the facts is very telling as to how you are likely to decide a case. A court or quasi-judicial agency that wants to minimize the risks of losing an embarrassing appeal will typically make factual findings that strongly support the conclusions it intends to draw. It is far more likely to be overturned because the weight of the evidence supports a different factual finding, than because the law was incorrectly applied to the facts that were found. This all means that, in many cases, you can pretty well predict the outcome of a decision from the factual findings, and given that a decision is likely coming soon, Microsoft may already have seen those factual findings. If Microsoft's counsel has read the CMA's factual findings, and on that basis believes that the CMA is poised to block the Merger, then this deal could be on very shaky ground indeed.
It is difficult to predict where this is headed without having a good feel for the veracity of that particular report, and if true, the basis for the belief that the CMA will block it. There is no legal reason, under US or EU antitrust law, why this merger cannot move forward. In the UK, the discretion of the CMA is near absolute.
I would like to address the arguments that the FTC is not abusing their power. They are. In this transaction it is not particularly relevant because, except to the extent that they are persuasive to the CMA, they won't change the outcome. Although this has already been discussed, I think there is some misunderstanding in some of these comments, and I'd like to give my two cents. In the United States, the government is subservient to the law. Administrative agencies are tasked with, to various extents, interpreting, enforcing, and adjudicating issues under specific laws. The FTC is tasked with some amount of work related to Antitrust laws, although they split this authority with the DOJ, in a way that is pretty unique among agencies. Nevertheless, they are tasked with, for some mergers, determining whether a proposal violates antitrust laws.
When the FTC takes cases where there is no cognizable legal theory under which Antitrust laws could be considered violated, and tries to challenge the transaction on the basis of what it believes the law should be, that is an abuse of power. Imagine if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms decided that the law should be that handguns are illegal, so it took away every handgun it could find, and then forced people to go through a time consuming and expensive process to reclaim them. The ATF would know that they would lose any cases that were litigated, but that most people would abandon the process rather than face the time and expense of litigating, and that in pursuing a case with no legal merit, they could put a big dent in activity which is legal, but which they don't like. Regardless of how you feel about handguns, that would be an abuse of power. An agency's responsibility to taxpayers is not to use their enforcement power as a hammer to change the law, or to prevent lawful activity they don't like. Anything that strays from fidelity to the law, as they understand it to actually be, is an abuse of authority. It costs taxpayers money, it undermines faith in the agency itself, and it wastes significant resources (agency resources, private resources, and court resources). Where an administrative agency is doing all this in the hope that they can convince the legislature to change the law, it is the worst sort of example of the tail trying to wag the dog.
My concern with the FTC is not bound to this particular transaction. They are the least dangerous when facing a determined and financially powerful adversary. They will cost Microsoft some money for no good reason, and that's a minor shame. When they do the same thing in smaller transactions, they successfully block entire mergers that should go through, substantially harming consumers and businesses under the auspices of the law, but without any actual basis in law or fact. If that is not abuse of government authority, I struggle to see what is.
My background is that I'm an Attorney in the United States of America, and an investor. During times where I expect the stock market to fall, I typically analyze merger arbitrage plays and look for ones that appear, based on the available information to present an extremely favorable risk/reward payoff, and invest heavily in those. To determine the risk/reward I look at the premium that will be received if the deal goes through, the relevant contracts, the likely application of antitrust laws to the transaction, the fair valuation of the stock if a deal falls through, the public statements of the parties involved, and any other relevant factor specific to that transaction. I sold my broad based investments in early January 2022, in anticipation of the market collapse. I eventually threw that money into Twitter, and held it to the close of that transaction. Soon after that, I dumped the proceeds into Activision/Blizzard/King, where I still sit heavily invested. I don't believe the deal will close because I'm invested there, but I did invest there because I believed the deal would close. Actually, I am more skeptical that the deal will close now than I was when I invested. With those disclosures having been made, I have dedicated substantial thought to this transaction specifically, and to the merger process generally, and want to share some of my thoughts.
This deal will close or not, almost exclusively based on the decision of the CMA in the UK for three reasons, as follows:
1. The FTC's case has no legal merit, and Microsoft appears more than willing to spend the resources necessary to close over their objections, and fully litigate the matter if necessary, unless the issue is rendered moot by another antitrust authority blocking the transaction.
2. The EC is far more open to behavioral remedies than other regulators, and Microsoft appears willing to accept substantial behavioral remedies, which makes it more than likely that a deal will ultimately be reached on that front, if the process clears the CMA.
3. The CMA has unique power. They are not bound by the same flavor of judicial oversight as the other major antitrust agencies. As an attorney this seems incredibly problematic to me, but that doesn't change what it is. In the UK, the CMA's decision will generally only be challengeable on the grounds that they made a decision that was wholly illogical, or a process which was illegal. Even in those cases, it is generally remanded back to the CMA for further consideration. There is legal weight to a decision by the CMA far beyond that of a decision by the FTC or EC, particularly in cases such as this where a party defending the transaction has the funds and the willingness to litigate thoroughly.
It is hard to filter out what news is real, and infer from that the basis thereof. For example, Bloomberg reported that the FTC had filed a request for a preliminary injunction in Federal Court the same day as an earlier phone call with the EC. No news has mentioned what US District Court that request was ultimately filed in. By now, even if it was filed under seal, there should be a publicly available, if somewhat redacted, version of that document. I should be able to see it on PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records, a system where, for a small per page fee, one can access pretty much all unsealed court records ). So should any legal reporter. The only conclusion I can draw was that there was no such filing made that day.
Recently it was reported, and much discussed here, that Microsoft expected the CMA to oppose the transaction in Phase 2. There are at least four possible reasons for this, one of which should concern anyone interested in this transaction. One explanation is that it is incorrect reporting. Given the claims of a request for an injunction by the FTC, I can't fully discount that possibility. It is possible that Microsoft is just trying to lower expectations somewhat for some tactical purpose, or that these were just the personal views of a particular person the reporter talked to. It is possible that the thought process was simply that the FTC objected, and the EC objected, so the CMA would probably object too. If I were sure that one of these explanations was the real one, I would accord them zero weight and move on. The fourth possible explanation, however, concerns me, as follows:
Among the many issues that the CMA balances, it balances a concern for keeping trade secrets secret against the importance of revealing information forming the basis of its decision. One way that it balances these things in cases likely to involve trade secrets is sometimes sending its factual findings to parties involved, so that they can look through them and see if they include things that the parties assert are trade secrets which should be withheld from disclosure. The CMA will then look at the arguments for whether these issues are in fact a trade secret, and also see if disclosure is necessary because they are part of the "gist" of the CMA's case. It will then decide on disclosure. This means sometimes, the parties will see a factual background that is being put in a decision before the decision itself comes out.
Cases are about applying the law to the facts. How you describe the facts is very telling as to how you are likely to decide a case. A court or quasi-judicial agency that wants to minimize the risks of losing an embarrassing appeal will typically make factual findings that strongly support the conclusions it intends to draw. It is far more likely to be overturned because the weight of the evidence supports a different factual finding, than because the law was incorrectly applied to the facts that were found. This all means that, in many cases, you can pretty well predict the outcome of a decision from the factual findings, and given that a decision is likely coming soon, Microsoft may already have seen those factual findings. If Microsoft's counsel has read the CMA's factual findings, and on that basis believes that the CMA is poised to block the Merger, then this deal could be on very shaky ground indeed.
It is difficult to predict where this is headed without having a good feel for the veracity of that particular report, and if true, the basis for the belief that the CMA will block it. There is no legal reason, under US or EU antitrust law, why this merger cannot move forward. In the UK, the discretion of the CMA is near absolute.
I would like to address the arguments that the FTC is not abusing their power. They are. In this transaction it is not particularly relevant because, except to the extent that they are persuasive to the CMA, they won't change the outcome. Although this has already been discussed, I think there is some misunderstanding in some of these comments, and I'd like to give my two cents. In the United States, the government is subservient to the law. Administrative agencies are tasked with, to various extents, interpreting, enforcing, and adjudicating issues under specific laws. The FTC is tasked with some amount of work related to Antitrust laws, although they split this authority with the DOJ, in a way that is pretty unique among agencies. Nevertheless, they are tasked with, for some mergers, determining whether a proposal violates antitrust laws.
When the FTC takes cases where there is no cognizable legal theory under which Antitrust laws could be considered violated, and tries to challenge the transaction on the basis of what it believes the law should be, that is an abuse of power. Imagine if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms decided that the law should be that handguns are illegal, so it took away every handgun it could find, and then forced people to go through a time consuming and expensive process to reclaim them. The ATF would know that they would lose any cases that were litigated, but that most people would abandon the process rather than face the time and expense of litigating, and that in pursuing a case with no legal merit, they could put a big dent in activity which is legal, but which they don't like. Regardless of how you feel about handguns, that would be an abuse of power. An agency's responsibility to taxpayers is not to use their enforcement power as a hammer to change the law, or to prevent lawful activity they don't like. Anything that strays from fidelity to the law, as they understand it to actually be, is an abuse of authority. It costs taxpayers money, it undermines faith in the agency itself, and it wastes significant resources (agency resources, private resources, and court resources). Where an administrative agency is doing all this in the hope that they can convince the legislature to change the law, it is the worst sort of example of the tail trying to wag the dog.
My concern with the FTC is not bound to this particular transaction. They are the least dangerous when facing a determined and financially powerful adversary. They will cost Microsoft some money for no good reason, and that's a minor shame. When they do the same thing in smaller transactions, they successfully block entire mergers that should go through, substantially harming consumers and businesses under the auspices of the law, but without any actual basis in law or fact. If that is not abuse of government authority, I struggle to see what is.
What she said makes a lot of sense. We'll see if the CMA agrees.
I know it's been thrown around much in this thread, but 'cripple' or anything along those lines is overstating what Sony said.
I don't know exactly what the FTC requested, but most that have seen the amount and scope of information that Microsoft requested would deem it absurd, yes.
Just as an aside, I will no longer respond to posts with 'lol', 'rofl', 'lmao' or the like in it. No offense, it just doesn't feel like we're conversing with respect when that is unnecessarily typed up.
I'm going to look up the direct quote because I'm almost positive that this is an exaggeration of what was stated.
Edit: From what I've seen searching for 5 minutes, yeah, it's a conflation. Sony has said Battlefield cant compete with COD, not that this deal would render them unable to compete.
Sony Responds to Microsoft's Call of Duty Deal, States Battlefield Can't Compete and PS+ "Lags Behind" Xbox Game Pass
Sony has responded to Microsoft's deal regarding a 10-year contract with Call of Duty, stating facts about its services and competition
I'm assuming it's referring to Sony's statement to the CMA;
View: https://i.imgur.com/0uOnJ20.jpg
Whatever you say, Milkshake Duck.
Lol, you even corrected it within 24 hours! Why was that not picked up!? Ah well you're famous, enjoy it while it lasts.
This is from the pdf I downloaded:
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that isn't the same thing as Tigerfish419 and many, many others are implying. A little too late, but I thought it would be appropriate to get the record straight.
Last edited:
Yes. The deal seems to be totally dependent on the final decision of the CMA. Your take on the FTC is very interesting and I hope to see more of your posts on this thread
If Sony doesn't comply with the FTC's subpoena, that is going to be a huge problem even internally for the FTC court since they already made the argument that the Market of interest is Sony vs Microsoft. FTC's internal judges would highly likely side with Microsoft on the lack of data disclosure.
If Sony is stonewalling other regulators, that would be a curious development but not sure how much they would rely on such information.
If Sony is stonewalling other regulators, that would be a curious development but not sure how much they would rely on such information.
Just an FYI, Microsoft came out and denied the report that they're expecting the CMA to oppose the transaction.
Do other regulators even have subpeona power? I don't think they do and if so, I'm not sure when they'd used it. Most of the stuff I've seen is voluntary. I know Nintendo didn't respond to a request from someone. The problem is, if someone volunteers incomplete or misleading information that could ultimately affect a regulator's decision, what then?