Support NeoGAF

[R3claimer117]

source ?

Lol there's no source it's just more wishful thinking.

 

[feynoob]

It seems you are mixing up past, present and future tense in your arguments. MS has said to the regulators that it forcasts a loss in marketshare in the UK. At the end of 2023 it will become obvious this is complete bullshit. That's all I'm saying.

Xbox one fiasco, PS success, switch success = MS losing market share.

PS and Switch are not seeing problems with their systems, while xseries is still having xbox one affect.
Early xbox one had X360 success, while current xseries is dealing with xbox one after math.
For example, 2022 being complete dry was the result of xbox one late investment.

What makes you believe that?

Only back in April you had this info from Nadella himself when regulators weren't breathing down his neck about the acquisition

https://www.eurogamer.net/xbox-seri...bally-in-console-market-for-past-two-quarters

"With our Xbox Series X and S consoles, we have taken share globally for two quarters in a row and we are the market leader this quarter among the next-gen consoles in the United States, Canada, UK, and Western Europe," Nadella said.

But to the UK regulators they are suggesting they forcast market share loss ie they will start to lose marketshare.

Nadella did not say which company it has specifically gained market share from, though quarterly results from US numbers firm NPD this week pointed to Xbox availability being key, compared to the supply-constrained PlayStation.

Supply contraint for the PS5.

If it goes to court, come the end of 2023 the bluff would be obvious. They are definitely not getting left behind here, they are gaining marketshare not losing it.

They are getting left behind, because they are coming from xbox one disaster.
PS5 is having a nice joy ride with 115m+ ps4 success. Switch is selling above 100+m, and next one could enjoy that succuess, if Nintendo doesnt fk it up.
Both have great trajectory.

2 different scenario. Its not like xbox is coming x360 success. They sold 55m-60m last gen. That is a disaster console, compared to 85m x360.
It will take them time to hit that x360 numbers. And 100m console trajectory is a big hurdle.

 

[feynoob]

Literally what thing about this deal is illegal to the point that Microsoft could be banned from acquisitions for 10 years? You've maybe been listening to resetera legal analysis too much. No need to go full on hyperbole.

Everybody Needs Prior Approval! – The FTC Revives And Expands an Old Enforcement Tool over a Scathing Dissent | White & Case LLP

On October 25, 2021, a deeply divided FTC voted 3-2 to enact a major policy change relevant to every party involved in settling a merger investigation with the FTC. Earlier this year, the FTC signaled its intent to bring back an old practice of mandatory prior approval and notice provisions in...

www.whitecase.com

The new FTC policy means that parties settling a merger investigation with the FTC can expect (at minimum) a ten-year post-settlement period, during which the parties must seek the FTC's prior approval to pursue a transaction in a directly affected market (or even an indirectly affected market) from the transaction covered by the FTC order. The same prior approval requirements also will apply to any divestiture buyers of a business or assets looking to sell them within ten years of the FTC consent order.

Before 1995, it was routine for the FTC to use prior approval provisions broadly in consent agreements with merging parties. These provisions "required all companies that had violated the law in a previous merger to obtain prior approval by the FTC for any future transaction in at least the same product and geographic market for which a violation was alleged."1

Fast forward to July 21, 2021 when the FTC's longstanding practice of narrowly imposing prior approval provisions was rescinded in a public meeting by a 3-2 vote along party lines.5 FTC Chair Lina M. Khan justified the action on repeat offenders attempting to engage in problematic deals in similar markets, and noted that FTC Staff were significantly under sourced amidst a surge of merger filings.6 The two dissenting Republican Commissioners expressed strong disapproval of the majority's repeal of the 1995 policy. Commissioner Wilson saw the policy change as unnecessary and seemingly vindictive, and noted that the FTC already used prior approval provisions with some frequency.7 Commissioner Phillips also dissented and likened the rescission to the creation of an "M&A tax on anyone who enters into a merger consent" and worried that it would deter parties from entering into consents with the agency in the first place.8

The FTC officially announced its policy change of course on prior approval provisions with its October 25, 2021 Statement of the Commission on the Use of Prior Approval Provisions in Merger Orders, advising the public that prior approval (and/or notice) provisions will be required in all future consent orders.9 Similar to Chair Khan's comments in July, the FTC claimed that this policy shift would help the agency prevent facially anticompetitive deals, preserve Commission resources, and detect anticompetitive deals below the HSR reporting threshold.10 Similar to the pre-1995 practice, the minimum period for the prior approval provisions will be ten years.11

 

[Godot25]

 

[pasterpl]

NY post again ;/

 

[Pelta88]

Well damn

Microsoft-Activision remedy talks not welcome by US FTC | MLex | Specialist news and analysis on legal risk and regulation

The US Federal Trade Commission has no interest in any remedy discussions to address concerns with the Microsoft-Activision deal, MLex has learned. Without a settlement in sight, the companies face an all-or-nothing decision.

mlexmarketinsight.com

 

[ZehDon]

Well damn

http://[URL]https://mlexmarketinsig...activision-remedy-talks-not-welcome-by-us-ftc

[/URL]

The FTC appears to be pushing an ideological opposition as opposed to a legal one, which makes pre-emptive discussions pointless: Microsoft's well-paid legal department knows the same precedent, and they aren't going to give them an inch. In my opinion, either the FTC goes hard and sues to block it, or they admit they have little ground and allow the deal without any concessions; I doubt we get negotiations.

 

[adamsapple]

Well damn

Microsoft-Activision remedy talks not welcome by US FTC | MLex | Specialist news and analysis on legal risk and regulation

The US Federal Trade Commission has no interest in any remedy discussions to address concerns with the Microsoft-Activision deal, MLex has learned. Without a settlement in sight, the companies face an all-or-nothing decision.

mlexmarketinsight.com

Old.

Was posted yesterday by feynoob

 

[reksveks]

Will wait to see if anyone else hears anything similar to the NY Post, don't particularly trust them

 

[SenjutsuSage]

https://nypost.com/2022/12/04/rift-at-ftc-stirs-hope-for-microsofts-69b-activision-merger/

This sounds eerily similar to what I've been saying this whole time.

That there are political implications which are stronger than people realize for this deal, especially with regards to workers and labor unions, the influence of Democrats support for Unions, and the significance of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer who has maintained every bit of the same power he had before the recent elections, and may become even more powerful if December 6th in Georgia goes as Democrats desire.

"The FTC's sole Republican commissioner, Christine Wilson, has signaled support of the deal. But sources say at least one of the four-member panel's three Democratic commissioners — which in addition to Khan include Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya — also has recently appeared to lean toward the Microsoft camp, according to a source close to the situation."

"Some of the Democrats might be more comfortable with a settlement," approving the deal with concessions from the companies instead of trying to block it altogether, an FTC insider told The Post.

While the identity of the dissenting Democrat couldn't immediately be confirmed, DC sources following the situation pointed to Slaughter, who was acting FTC Chair until last year, when President Joe Biden installed 33-year-old Khan at the helm of the powerful regulatory agency.

A Democratic defection would leave Khan with a 2-2 tie in any vote to clamp down on the merger — a result that would not only effectively OK the deal but also throw Khan's authority over the agency into question. That, accordingly, is a vote that Khan isn't likely to risk, according to DC insiders.

"Lina would probably not put things in a position for that to take place, so instead of having that vote she would make the motion to approve the settlement," said William Kovacic, a former FTC Chairman. "The way out is to say, 'We got a great deal and only got it because we've been badasses.'

Microsoft has a history of courting Democrats. In the 2020 election cycle, Microsoft donated $13.8 million to Democrats and only $1.72 million to Republicans. In 2022, it gave $4.1 million to Dems and $1 million to Republicans, according to Open Secrets.

Remember I been saying how important Chuck Schumer is to this entire process?

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer in July reportedly went to Washington state to meet Microsoft President Brad Smith and discuss, among other things, the pending Activision merger and its potential impact on New York. They also reportedly met in February.

Insiders note that Slaughter was Schumer's chief counsel from June 2014 to May 2018 before leaving to become an FTC Commissioner. "This is when Schumer calls his old protege and says, 'What's up?" according to Kovacic.

As always, the politicians (specifically the ones most responsible for Khan and every single Democrat on the FTC panel being on there in the first place), have serious sway on this matter and always did. And the political objectives of the current administration and President always mattered in this arrangement. I'm not a NYpost fan, but they have strong sources, and you can always tell which of their stories to ignore. This isn't likely to be one of those.

As reported by The Post early last month, Microsoft's stubborn refusal to offer concrete concessions to regulators and rivals in exchange for winning the deal has been a major sticking point. If Microsoft is finally showing a willingness to budge, that weakens any case by the FTC to block the merger — and emboldens dissenters, according to experts.

"What makes it difficult is when Microsoft goes to their friends in blue and says, 'We have provided a package of solutions for all the perceived problems, and the folks at the FTC are being very unreasonable if they don't take it,'" Kovacic said.

If Microsoft does indeed offer a significant remedy, President Biden would likely want the deal cleared and ask someone such as his antitrust advisor Tim Wu to push Khan to accept the proposal, the ex-FTC chairman said. The pitch would be that Microsoft can be trusted to keep its promises because of its past history of responsible behavior, sources said.

"It does become hard to say, 'This is not good enough,'" said Kovacic, who now puts the chances of the merger getting approved at 70%. "It becomes more difficult for the Commission to push this aside."

Remember I been stressing the importance of the CWA approval for the deal and the importance of Unions especially to Democrats?

The Communications Workers of America wrote in a June 30 letter that it supported the deal and has been lobbying Congress, an FTC insider noted. CWA said it believes the merger would give Activision Blizzard workers a clear path to collective bargaining and unionization. That's a message that lawmakers, in turn, may be inclined to pass to the FTC, sources said.

"All the Commissioners are attuned to the Hill," one DC insider told The Post.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Will wait to see if anyone else hears anything similar to the NY Post, don't particularly trust them

Trust this story. I'm willing to bank 110% every single word is accurate, especially as it relates to the FTC Commisioner who use to work for Senate Majority Leader (and Democrat) Chuck Schumer. If it ends up being a 2-2 vote, the deal is approved. And it looks almost certain like the vote at the FTC will be 2-2 at minimum, which will almost certainly approve the deal potentially without concessions if the FTC doesn't attempt to take up Microsoft on its offer. And don't think Microsoft isn't speaking to its elected Democrat allies (all of which the FTC Democrats will take seriously) to communicate these things directly to the FTC.


I don't like the nypost, but you can tell when they have a legit story and it's not just the typical fox news type stuff that you should ignore.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

source ?

No way in hell that was ever true. Microsoft's commitment of a $3 billion break up fee should have told people they weren't concerned with any image with regulators. Your image with regulators can't be damaged when you're fighting regulators on solid, fair grounds.

 

[feynoob]

From idas.
Just this week, Sarah Cardell (the Interim Chief Executive of the CMA) said this about Big Tech:

Problems in digital markets matter more given their staggering scale, scope and speed of evolution. Let me provide some perspective. The 'GAMMA firms', as they are sometimes called – Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Meta and Apple – have a combined market valuation of around £5.6 trillion, even despite recent slides in tech share prices. That is more than twice the size of UK GDP. And equally as mind-boggling is the breadth of these companies' activities. Take Amazon for example: amongst other things it is now a retailer, a logistics provider, a driverless-car developer, a television and movie producer, a music distributor, a book publisher, a cloud services company, a fashion designer, a home appliance manufacturer, a payment services provider, and a grocer.

This unprecedented scale and scope afford these firms a strategic position creating a situation of dependency – and potential exploitation – for the people and businesses who rely on them, as well as the risk that they can act to deter innovative competitors.

Let me be clear: big isn't bad per se. It is entirely right that successful companies should be able to grow and profit from their innovations – that's an essential driver for effective competition. But as those companies grow over time it is important that they remain subject to effective competition, to spur on further innovation and ensure sustained good outcomes for their customers.

I'd like to say a word here about mergers in digital markets. I sometimes hear a concern that the CMA is out to block acquisitions by the major platforms. That's simply not the case. We do think it's right that we look carefully at their acquisitions, where we have jurisdiction to do so, given their existing positions of substantial market power. But we take an objective and evidence-based approach to each such assessment – and in fact while there have been hundreds of acquisitions over the past decade by GAMMA firms, to date we have only blocked one – Meta's acquisition of Giphy.

But overall, we must be mindful of the risks that come from significant and entrenched market power – particularly in markets that have become essential for our way of life and commerce.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Lmao they shook

 

[adamsapple]

From idas.
Just this week, Sarah Cardell (the Interim Chief Executive of the CMA) said this about Big Tech:

All accoridng to keikaku.

Editors note: Keikaku means concessions.

 

[DenchDeckard]

So it's all going through again with 0 issues.....the roller coaster continues!

 

[ReBurn]

Everybody Needs Prior Approval! – The FTC Revives And Expands an Old Enforcement Tool over a Scathing Dissent | White & Case LLP

On October 25, 2021, a deeply divided FTC voted 3-2 to enact a major policy change relevant to every party involved in settling a merger investigation with the FTC. Earlier this year, the FTC signaled its intent to bring back an old practice of mandatory prior approval and notice provisions in...

www.whitecase.com

That does not mean what you think it means.

That does not give the FTC broad approval authority over mergers and acquisitions. It means that if a lawsuit the FTC files is settled with a divestiture agreement then the company that was trying to acquire the other can't just buy the divested assets from the new company after the merger closes without prior consent of the FTC because it would still result in the same illegal situation.

The way this would apply to the ABK acquisition is that if Microsoft reached a settlement with the FTC to spin off the part of ABK that makes Call of Duty as an independent company then there would likely be a prior consent agreement in the settlement that says Microsoft can't turn around and buy the CoD IP and the studios that make it from the new company. They would need prior approval from the FTC to buy those assets.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

So it's all going through again with 0 issues.....the roller coaster continues!

I've been telling folks from the start there is a strong political element to this that people were ignoring. Did people think Microsoft made that deal with the CWA for no reason? They did that because it was always likely to be definitive or significant with the party in power. Always assume Democrats will never intentionally seek to displease or go against Labor Unions. It's something they don't generally want to do. If it ever happens it's due to circumstances beyond their control, likely some economic reason attached to it, trying to prevent a big economic problem. But one party is generally seen as a much bigger ally of workers' right to organize than the other.

No matter what people were saying about Lina Khan to make her appear all scary for this deal, she's a political appointee with her own political considerations to make, and will always factor in the political objectives of the party that put her where she is. One party primarily supported her nomination to become an FTC commissioner and then Chairwomen. Democrats. What few Republican votes she got, she only received them because they didn't know she was going to be chosen as the Chairwoman of the FTC. She would have never been nominated under a Republican President. Even with Biden in office, her name for nomination to the FTC panel of commissioners would have never come up for a vote if Republicans, instead of Democrats, controlled the US Senate.

What did Republicans do on the next Democrat appointment to the FTC panel of commissioners after feeling they got tricked by Democrats to put Khan in place?

This happened.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/11/senate-confirms-bedoya-to-ftc-00029128

The Senate voted 51-50 on Wednesday to confirm Alvaro Bedoya as a member of the Federal Trade Commission, adding a progressive privacy advocate to the agency and restoring a Democratic majority at a time when the FTC is poised to take on corporate giants in industries such as tech.

Vice President Kamala Harris cast the tie-breaking vote for the Georgetown University law professor.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer cast the move as a crucial step forward for the Biden administration's effort to protect consumers' privacy and fight inflation, including scrutinizing the reasons for rising energy prices. The vote "brings the agency back to full strength to enforce antitrust protections, fight against price gougers, market manipulators, and those trying to rip off American consumers," he said in a statement.


But Republicans threw up a solid bloc of opposition that held up Bedoya's confirmation for months, citing both his history of barbed posts on Twitter and their own reservations about FTC Chair Lina Khan's progressive agenda.

Republicans were no longer quite as favorable. Instead of the 69-28 votes Lina Khan managed to get in the US Senate (when she managed to get 21 Republican votes in her favor because they didn't know she would be chair), the latest appointment in May 2022 was a straight party-line vote. 50 democrats 50 republicans. Vice President Harris broke the tie. I had incorrectly assumed the FTC panel was 2 Democrats and 2 Republicans. Realizing that it's 3 Democrats and 1 Republican makes me more confident that the FTC will not block the deal. I firmly believe that should Khan want to sue, the two other democrats, Bedoya (confirmed May 2022) and Slaughter (Biden's original choice before Khan was pushed heavily by specific Democrats in the Senate) will not vote with her against Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard. No way I see that happening. I firmly believe Bedoya and Slaughter are on the FTC to check any potential extreme moves on the part of Khan, who I firmly believe is inclined to respect the views of the other two democrats.

People always assume that they will target companies purely for trying to acquire other companies, or for being big in size, but that's not the case. It was always around things like price gouging, energy prices, privacy concerns, social media concerns, market manipulation etc, or concerns about fighting disinformation or foreign interference in elections. That's the type of stuff a Biden FTC will mostly focus on. Khan is seen as a bigger problem for Facebook, Amazon and/or Google than Microsoft, which is why Google publicly came out against her. As did Amazon.

 

[feynoob]

That does not mean what you think it means.

That does not give the FTC broad approval authority over mergers and acquisitions. It means that if a lawsuit the FTC files is settled with a divestiture agreement then the company that was trying to acquire the other can't just buy the divested assets from the new company after the merger closes without prior consent of the FTC because it would still result in the same illegal situation.

The way this would apply to the ABK acquisition is that if Microsoft reached a settlement with the FTC to spin off the part of ABK that makes Call of Duty as an independent company then there would likely be a prior consent agreement in the settlement that says Microsoft can't turn around and buy the CoD IP and the studios that make it from the new company. They would need prior approval from the FTC to buy those assets.

Besides, I don't think that MS is willing to accept a settlement with the FTC because since October 2021 the Prior Approval and Prior Notice Policy is active again. That means that any parties who settle a merger investigation with the FTC "can expect (at minimum) a ten-year post-settlement period, during which the parties must seek the FTC's prior approval to pursue a transaction in a directly affected market (or even an indirectly affected market) from the transaction covered by the FTC order".

That is if MS is willing to accept settlement with FTC.

 

[bxrz]

So FTC is (allegedly) at a 2-2 split, which would push the acquisition through

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

So xboys vs soyboys?

 

[CatLady]

From her nasty expression she looks like someone just used the wrong pronouns for her. Just do your actual job bitch as an unbiased regulator instead of being a political activist pushing your personal agenda.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

So FTC is (allegedly) at a 2-2 split, which would push the acquisition true.

I'm betting it's more than just a 2-2 split. I'm betting it's potentially 3-1. And if it's 3-1 that means it will be 4-0, this way Lina Khan's leadership doesn't appear in doubt publicly once it leaks what the vote breakdown was. And it probably will in this high profile a case.

 

[feynoob]

From her nasty expression she looks like someone just used the wrong pronouns for her. Just do your actual job bitch as an unbiased regulator instead of being a political activist pushing your personal agenda.

CatLady is ready to fight Lina khan.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

From her nasty expression she looks like someone just used the wrong pronouns for her. Just do your actual job bitch as an unbiased regulator instead of being a political activist pushing your personal agenda.

lol that's a little too much. First off, she has been very incorrectly portrayed by advocates who wanted this deal blocked from the start. She was never the enemy of all big tech and any acquisition like some wanted everybody to believe. Everything she has said from the very beginning has never been as objectionable, or as hostile, to this particular deal or mergers as some have portrayed it. She only ever was committed to doing what the job of the FTC is supposed to be. As such, she wanted to force it to be respected more, which it should be in a lot of cases as it should crackdown a lot more on specific behaviors than has been the norm in recent years. Many times comments made by her intended to make the FTC and its authority be taken more seriously have been expanded and even sensationalized by websites and their writers, various commentators, and outright trolls to put a more harsh spin on what she has actually been saying because it fits with their agenda.

But it doesn't mean target everything just for the sake of targeting something to make a big name for herself. So with that in mind, lots of Xbox fans have been unnecessarily harsh towards her not even based on her own words, but by other people's interpretations of her words. How is it possible she has this reputation when she has said the least of all major regulators publicly about this deal? And what she has gone on the record with would make those hopeful the deal is approved happy.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Also, the NY post story is the first to actually name drop a single source for its information. That is a complete standout from all prior stories thus far. They have quotes directly from a former FTC Chairman under George W. Bush and briefly under President Obama before being replaced by Obama's pick, Jon Leibowitz in 2009. But this individual remained as an FTC Commissioner for years after that.

That's a bit more significant as you have a former Chairman and FTC commissioner from Jan 2006 - October 2011 lending their name and credibility to the story. Chances are high they still have sources on the inside also.

 

[David B]

Buying a developer company is not a monopoly! There's still, Capcom, THQNordic, RockStar, WB studios, and tons more 3rd party studios. Call of Duty is not monopolism.

 

[feynoob]

Buying a developer company is not a monopoly! There's still, Capcom, THQNordic, RockStar, WB studios, and tons more 3rd party studios. Call of Duty is not monopolism.

Aside of the price, it isnt close to a monopoly.
Activision only has popular IPs. Not alot of them.

 

[Topher]

"Microsoft has a history of courting Democrats. In the 2020 election cycle, Microsoft donated $13.8 million to Democrats and only $1.72 million to Republicans. In 2022, it gave $4.1 million to Dems and $1 million to Republicans, according to Open Secrets."

 

[feynoob]

"Microsoft has a history of courting Democrats. In the 2020 election cycle, Microsoft donated $13.8 million to Democrats and only $1.72 million to Republicans. In 2022, it gave $4.1 million to Dems and $1 million to Republicans, according to Open Secrets."

 

[R3claimer117]

From her nasty expression she looks like someone just used the wrong pronouns for her. Just do your actual job bitch as an unbiased regulator instead of being a political activist pushing your personal agenda.

Lol she won't have a choice funny if after all these months of dumb takes it goes through without concessions.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Lol she won't have a choice funny if after all these months of dumb takes it goes through without concessions.

I'll laugh if the Labor Union agreements are treated as the big concession.

 

[ManaByte]

This is the opening for sites to slowly walk back that lawsuit story, which likely wasn't true in the first place.

 

[gothmog]

This is the opening for sites to slowly walk back that lawsuit story, which likely wasn't true in the first place.

It's also the NY Post which means it's poorly sourced.

 

[Topher]

This is the opening for sites to slowly walk back that lawsuit story, which likely wasn't true in the first place.

This story is actually corroborating that "lawsuit story".

 

[SenjutsuSage]

It's also the NY Post which means it's poorly sourced.

90% of the time I would agree with you when it's political in nature because we know what their lean is and their respect for truth is very loose. However, there are plenty of times when they do indeed report stories that are true on a purely factual basis, where there is no political "win" to speak of from the story.

There is no political slant to this particular story. It's about as neutral as the NY Post gets. And because of that neutrality, there's a very good chance it can be believed, especially because they went so far as to reach out to inquire the opinion of a former FTC Commissioner and Chairman under George W. Bush and President Obama.

I've also looked at the archive of the author of the particular article. And while I won't say I agree with every single story they've written, a lot of their stuff does appear to be real reporting that tries to source itself quite well.

An example would be this article. To my complete shock, the author even acknowledges that Elon Musk's post about Nancy Pelosi's husband was, in fact, not true. So they don't seem to take issue with admitting lies are lies.

https://nypost.com/2022/11/04/elon-...twitter-to-avoid-700m-loss-next-year-sources/

And then if one were to assume this writer is friendly to Democrats, here he is calling out Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, the most powerful elected Democrat in the United States, second only to President Joe Biden (yes, Pelosi is more powerful than the Vice President) prior to the election what appears to look like borderline questionable interference with the FCC on behalf of a political donor. And they even include counterpoints to how what she's doing could be legal to come off fair. So, I would say this reporter in particular appears, at a glance, to be a pretty serious reporter for the NY post that sources his stuff quite well.

https://nypost.com/2022/10/26/nancy-pelosi-attacks-media-merger-after-big-campaign-donation/

A link to their archive.

https://nypost.com/author/josh-kosman/

I'm a Democrat who generally despises the NY Post, but I won't lie and say I've never come across an accurate story on their site, especially relating to New York specific factual reporting.

 

[R3claimer117]

It's also the NY Post which means it's poorly sourced.

Lol so you only take sources that have confirmation biased for your views? They're the only ones have someone going on the record vs all the rest of anonymous sources with vague statements. They're so far the best sources out of all the articles.

 

[gothmog]

Lol so you only take sources that have confirmation biased for your views? They're the only ones have someone going on the record vs all the rest of anonymous sources with vague statements. They're so far the best sources out of all the articles.

I take sources that are actually sources. The article is heavy on conjecture but light on substance.

William Kovacic is often asked for his opinion on many things as he was a comissioner of the FTC. He hasn't been involved with the FTC in at least a decade, though. You can google to see that he is consulted often for his opinion on things.

The other thing about the Democratic members leaning towards the Microsoft camp link points to an article about Microsoft profits being down and not to anything even related to the statement. So what is backing up that someone is going to defect? Maybe they just linked the source article incorrectly?

The only thing with meat here is the "Some of the Democrats might be more comfortable with a settlement" part from an anonymous FTC insider as a source. Might even be Kovacic off record for all we know. I would actually be surprised if this statement was untrue. I am sure there is a lot of pressure and lobbying going on by Microsoft on this. But when we say settlement in FTC terms they usually mean divestiture, which we know Microsoft will probably not agree to.

 

[jeffwellfare]

if you're against this deal my advice to you is that you accept this deal and move on, cause there is nothing and no one that can stop it. someone here just used this website called "mlexmarketinsight" that no one has ever heard of the FTC's whole purpose out of this is to get concessions and they know they have 00% chances of winning in court against MSFT so their best move is to accept the concessions, if they go to court and lose they'll: 1- give themselves a bad look, they'll look weak and pathetic 2- by winning, MSFT will not have to offer anything. MSFT would LOVE to go to court. again. nothing and no one will stop this deal.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

From her nasty expression she looks like someone just used the wrong pronouns for her. Just do your actual job bitch as an unbiased regulator instead of being a political activist pushing your personal agenda.

At this level it's never about just regulating, there are always politics involved. Same as past few decades where politics dictated FTC being incredibly lenient with policing companies. The pendulum is swinging the other way, but let's not pretend past few decades were anything close to 'objective'.

Same with 1800s (rubber barons) and early 1900s (trust busting of Theodore Roosevelt).

 

[SenjutsuSage]

I take sources that are actually sources. The article is heavy on conjecture but light on substance.

William Kovacic is often asked for his opinion on many things as he was a comissioner of the FTC. He hasn't been involved with the FTC in at least a decade, though. You can google to see that he is consulted often for his opinion on things.

The other thing about the Democratic members leaning towards the Microsoft camp link points to an article about Microsoft profits being down and not to anything even related to the statement. So what is backing up that someone is going to defect? Maybe they just linked the source article incorrectly?

The only thing with meat here is the "Some of the Democrats might be more comfortable with a settlement" part from an anonymous FTC insider as a source. Might even be Kovacic off record for all we know. I would actually be surprised if this statement was untrue. I am sure there is a lot of pressure and lobbying going on by Microsoft on this. But when we say settlement in FTC terms they usually mean divestiture, which we know Microsoft will probably not agree to.

Settlement does not mean divestiture... There are settlements all the time that don't involve any such step so far. Settlements can also mean consent decrees, and commitments on how to behave. Twitter has a consent decree, for example since about 2010-2011.

They were recently ordered to pay $150 million in fines.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidan...allegedly-breaking-its-privacy-promises-again

Despite new ownership, Musk's twitter must still follow that consent decree. Settlements do not always involve divestiture.

https://techcrunch.com/2022/11/11/m...iable-if-company-violates-ftc-consent-decree/

Also, the NYPost article is a far better sourced article than the politico one. This one backs up its claims with a real named person who went on the record, and even goes so far as to tell you the names of which commissioners are leaning which way on the Activision deal with regards to their votes.

 

[GhostOfTsu]

"Microsoft has a history of courting Democrats. In the 2020 election cycle, Microsoft donated $13.8 million to Democrats and only $1.72 million to Republicans. In 2022, it gave $4.1 million to Dems and $1 million to Republicans, according to Open Secrets."

They were all angry at Sony for supposedly paying the EC and CMA and now we have proof MS is paying politicians (not rumors, actual numbers) and they are totally fine with it. No issues, no outrage, everything is normal.

 

[ChiefDada]

From her nasty expression she looks like someone just used the wrong pronouns for her. Just do your actual job bitch as an unbiased regulator instead of being a political activist pushing your personal agenda.

You're garbage.

Trust this story. I'm willing to bank 110% every single word is accurate, especially as it relates to the FTC Commisioner who use to work for Senate Majority Leader (and Democrat) Chuck Schumer. If it ends up being a 2-2 vote, the deal is approved. And it looks almost certain like the vote at the FTC will be 2-2 at minimum, which will almost certainly approve the deal potentially without concessions if the FTC doesn't attempt to take up Microsoft on its offer. And don't think Microsoft isn't speaking to its elected Democrat allies (all of which the FTC Democrats will take seriously) to communicate these things directly to the FTC.


I don't like the nypost, but you can tell when they have a legit story and it's not just the typical fox news type stuff that you should ignore.

Love your passion as always but there isn't much substance here. The "article" is literally three sentences. Or am I missing something?

 

[Three]

They were all angry at Sony for supposedly paying the EC and CMA and now we have proof MS is paying politicians (not rumors, actual numbers) and they are totally fine with it. No issues, no outrage, everything is normal.

That's because it's paying for Jason Bourne. Wouldn't want that phone call happening.

 

[gothmog]

Settlement does not mean divestiture... There are settlements all the time that don't involve any such step so far. Settlements can also mean consent decrees, and commitments on how to behave. Twitter has a consent decree, for example since about 2010-2011.

They were recently ordered to pay $150 million in fines.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidan...allegedly-breaking-its-privacy-promises-again

Despite new ownership, Musk's twitter must still follow that consent decree. Settlements do not always involve divestiture.

https://techcrunch.com/2022/11/11/m...iable-if-company-violates-ftc-consent-decree/

Also, the NYPost article is a far better sourced article than the politico one. This one backs up its claims with a real named person who went on the record, and even goes so far as to tell you the names of which commissioners are leaning which way on the Activision deal with regards to their votes.

We're talking about M&A. That consent decree was because they got in trouble over user data handling (privacy concern and not M&A) and signed the decree promising things or facing further action. Has nothing to do with anything other than the FTC was involved I guess?

From the FTC regarding the actual topic:
"Anticompetitive horizontal mergers are most often remedied by a divestiture; a proposal to divest one party's demonstrably autonomous, on-going business unit will usually expedite settlement."

So just to sum this up, we're talking about M&A, and the NY Post is talking about a settlement so they can avoid going to court over it, and those settlements usually are divestitures. If you read the FTC guidelines as I've repeated several times in this thread they say they prefer divestitures because a) they are enforceable and b) they work.

 

[pasterpl]

They were all angry at Sony for supposedly paying the EC and CMA and now we have proof MS is paying politicians (not rumors, actual numbers) and they are totally fine with it. No issues, no outrage, everything is normal.

Maybe because for anyone with half brain it is obvious that big tech donates to political parties in USA. It is something that was and will be happening. Also these companies are in bed with multiple governs branches from administration to military, where Sony have nothing to offer.

https://observer.com/2020/11/big-tech-2020-presidential-election-donation-breakdown-ranking/


Sony is not big tech, it doesn't qualify, being such a small corporation compared with others, it doesn't matter, having said that they were donating money to COVID relief in some countries, you can look at this as the, trying to get on gov good side. And I am also sure that Sony participate in lobbying in USA to some smaller degree.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

You're garbage.



Love your passion as always but there isn't much substance here. The "article" is literally three sentences. Or am I missing something?

I mean, hey, we can disagree that's fine. But it's far more than just three sentences that make this seem convincing. They tell you the significance of exactly who the dissenting Democrat is. She use to work for the current Senate Majority Leader, Chuck Schumer, who has retained control of the US Senate and might gain a lot more power with a 51st seat by end of day Tuesday or Wednesday since there's one more election in Georgia to decide whether Democrats gain a 51st seat or not.

Chuck Schumer is someone who clearly wants the Microsoft deal to be approved. Democrats are also heavily in favor of Unions, one of the biggest Unions in the United States sent a letter to the FTC asking for the deal to be approved. The current FTC majority, which is Democrats, will also very likely be influenced by currently elected Democrats who want the deal approved as well.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

There will be an initial reaction on the market, there always is, perfect opportunity to buy. Long term the MS stock is fine.

Exactly. Especially when they do more buybacks and strong financial results come in. Microsoft has already prepped investors for a downturn in specific business segments this quarter, so they're prepared for that, too.

 

[Godot25]

I must say that it would be fucking hilarious if this deal would pass everywhere except UK, and it would force Microsoft to sue CMA, and because of that they would be unable to have Call of Duty in Game Pass in UK. I'm sure that consumers in UK would take it as "CMA is protecting consumers"

"You want to play Call of Duty for cheaper inside your subscription? Fuck you then"

 

[Three]

I must say that it would be fucking hilarious if this deal would pass everywhere except UK, and it would force Microsoft to sue CMA, and because of that they would be unable to have Call of Duty in Game Pass in UK. I'm sure that consumers in UK would take it as "CMA is protecting consumers"

"You want to play Call of Duty for cheaper inside your subscription? Fuck you then"

Why do people keep posting this fake account? Even Jez quoted it in his article.