Support NeoGAF

[Topher]

They used the phrase high performance console, not high quality, my bad but the point still stands.

It's from the first page of their filing pdf.

There is nothing arbitrary about the difference in performance between the Switch and Xbox/PS so no, the point doesn't stand.

 

[OsirisBlack]

By using an arbitrary " high quality console " label they have effectively excluded Nintendo.

That's an argument that shouldn't hold in any court at all. Nintendo's consoles are arguably more high quality than the competition as they always have some of the best reviewed and selling games.



The statement is as official, until they respond to someone else, as it gets for now.

Other sources have asked them for further comment so we may know more soon enough.

That statement is definitely not anywhere near official. Seeing as this is now going to court they may not release a statement. (which would be a smart move) The EU is already not thrilled with the idea of this acquisition and is still doing a deep dive of it.



This quote from this article "We want people to have more access to games, not less." goes against what they previously did which is also a point the FTC will definitely bring up. https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/08/tech/eu-probe-microsoft-activision-ctrp/index.html You know looking at everything, Microsoft should just shut up and move in silence. Seems them talking just provides ammunition to be used against them. Or at least get your messaging straight.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

They used the phrase high performance console, not high quality, my bad but the point still stands.

It's from the first page of their filing pdf.

I don't know how you can completely misread their point and still argue that your point still stands

 

[adamsapple]

There is nothing arbitrary about the difference in performance between the Switch and Xbox/PS so no, the point doesn't stand.

I don't know what metric you're using. Both consoles have games of similar performance levels. Visual fidelity is and should not be a factor in an official filing of all places.

It's the same as Sonys statement about Switch only being relevant for younger audiences from a few days ago.

It's not a viable factor to exclude the most successful of the three consoles at all.

 

[Ezekiel_]

This just in : 'Anonymous watchdog says yo momma so dumb she sits on the TV, and watches the couch! '

More news at 11

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

I don't know what metric you're using. Both consoles have games of similar performance levels.

 

[MisterXDTV]

I don't know what metric you're using. Both consoles have games of similar performance levels. Visual fidelity is and should not be a factor in an official filing of all places.

It's the same as Sonys statement about Switch only being relevant for younger audiences from a few days ago.

It's not a viable factor to exclude the most successful of the three consoles at all.

Are you kidding me?

Switch is basically a portable console with an HDMI output

Similar performance levels???

Most third party games are not even ported to Switch

 

[Lone Wolf]

This just in : 'Anonymous watchdog says yo momma so dumb she sits on the TV, and watches the couch! '

More news at 11

2/10


Stick to the "LOL" emojis please.

 

[feynoob]

I know this isnt related to this case, but I want to share this article with you guys. This about the FTC work enviroment. To be precise, this june.

Antitrust | MLex | Specialist news and analysis on legal risk and regulation

News and analysis on legal developments including litigation filings, case settlements, verdicts, regulation, enforcement, legislation, corporate deals, and business of law.

mlexmarketinsight.com

Current and former staffers said an agency that has traditionally allowed even rookie staff attorneys to have input into whether to bring enforcement actions has become a hierarchical, top-down organization, where even expert staffers say they feel marginalized and afraid to speak truth to power, for fear of being frozen out for not being "on board" with Khan's mission.

"There is just a sheer lack of recognition that the FTC has a resource constraint. Everything is a priority and any pushback that this doesn't add up — it's like, 'You're not on board with us.' That is a major, major problem," said the manager. "People are being asked to do more and more and more and more without being properly resourced, or empowered, or motivated. There is no priority — everything is a priority. And when everything is a priority, nothing is a priority.

"The chair had an army of 1,000 dedicated attorneys who came to the FTC because they wanted to make a difference in the world, to make antitrust enforcement or consumer protection enforcement more visible and relevant, and they really believed in the mission of protecting competition and protecting consumers," said a veteran FTC lawyer. "The chair didn't come in and rally the troops around this mission they all believed in. Instead, she isolated herself and alienated herself. She's going to have a hard time overcoming those failures."

Khan was also faulted for waiting two months to have her first meet-and-greet session with the most senior members of the staff, a gap confirmed by FTCWatch through a FOIA request for staff emails that noted the first meeting. The new chair drew her senior leadership team from people close to former Commissioner Rohit Chopra, an outspoken consumer protection activist.

"They are trying very hard to control the messaging out of the FTC and there's very much of a mentality if you're not with us and 100 percent supportive, you're against us," another veteran FTC attorney told FTCWatch. "It's very much black and white now, which is not consistent with what you had historically at the FTC as a bipartisan agency."

From 2020 to 2021, the number of new cases brought by the Bureau of Consumer Protection dropped from 79 to 31, according to research done by Daniel Kaufman, former acting director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection. New merger enforcement cases brought by the Bureau of Competition fell from 31 in 2020 to 12, according to a statement by Commissioner Christine Wilson.

Khan is asking staff to pursue legal theories that even FTC veterans have rarely pursued and often don't have recent legal precedent, the staffer told FTCWatch. That leads to a lot of stress, especially when combined with how strapped the agency is for cash and the insane amount of merger filings there are right now, the person added.

But if Khan is a brilliant antitrust theorist, her critics say, that doesn't mean she has the organizational or litigation sense to deploy a force to navigate the US court system against stoutly defended foes such as Meta Platforms, which the FTC sued under Simons, or Amazon, which the FTC is reportedly investigating. Khan is seen by many within the agency as more of a "big ideas" academic than someone who has the legal and managerial savvy to run an organization like the FTC.
"She has her small cadre of people that she listens to, and she doesn't listen to anyone else," one staffer said.

"For years and years, there was a very strong, cooperative relationship between the private sector and the FTC. The FTC spoke at conferences and was very active in educating the public," said Sotto, who spoke to FTCWatch before the gag order was rescinded. "And now the FTC is forbidden to speak, which I find kind of antithetical to their educational mission and not helpful, because both the public and the private sector would benefit from understanding what the FTC is looking for. We're handicapped."

"I no longer felt excited about the work I was doing because it felt like it was in service of this leadership. While I supported the mission, I didn't really believe in them as leaders," one person said. "I probably would not have left the FTC but for that fact. When recruiters called me over the past five years, I always would say, 'No, no, no, I'm not leaving.' And then it changed."
"I have never seen staff morale like this in my [more than a dozen] years at the agency. It's exponentially worse," said another staffer who remembers becoming emotional at their departure. "I love the agency. It is like long-time family there."
"I probably would have stayed longer but for what is going on at the agency. I took it very personally, at least the way our division was treated and the people I was working with closely. I think I would have stayed longer had it not been for that," the former staffer said. "I'd like to go back; it has been the best job of my career."

GHG R reksveks
Do you guys think the FTC with this kind of enviroment, has any chance against MS?

 

[Topher]

I don't know what metric you're using. Both consoles have games of similar performance levels. Visual fidelity is and should not be a factor in an official filing of all places.

It's the same as Sonys statement about Switch only being relevant for younger audiences from a few days ago.

It's not a viable factor to exclude the most successful of the three consoles at all.

 

[GHG]

This just in : 'Anonymous watchdog says yo momma so dumb she sits on the TV, and watches the couch! '

More news at 11

We had exactly the same musings regarding the FTC's stance just days before they published their decision.

Meanwhile retail accumulation of ATVI stock continues to rise. Sometimes things are obvious but people don't want to see or hear it.

 

[feynoob]

o if you tell EU regulators you have no plans to remove Redfall and Starfield from rival consoles and then they suddenly end up "Exclusive" after the deal is complete, then what is the FTC going to think about what MS is saying about Call of Duty remaining on PlayStation?

Do people not pay attention to the remaining texts?

MS told EU it was case by case. Not that they were going to put the games there, unlike COD here. Even EU highlighted the process to do it.

 

[Menzies]

By using an arbitrary " high quality console " label they have effectively excluded Nintendo.

That's an argument that shouldn't hold in any court at all. Nintendo's consoles are arguably more high quality than the competition as they always have some of the best reviewed and selling games.



The statement is as official, until they respond to someone else, as it gets for now.

Other sources have asked them for further comment so we may know more soon enough.

Waiting for the realisation to suddenly dawn on all these regulators so keen to narrow the market of "serious gaming" to recognise the non-serious Nintendo 'monopoly', that they've got no problem leaving sailing in the wind.

Meanwhile, 2022 fan voted (serious) game of the year; Elden Ring is routinely compared with 2017 (non-serious) GOTY Breath of the Wild.

 

[Ezekiel_]

The Switch not being in a console gaming category of its own is some of the most dumb takes I've seen.

So you're telling us that it's out of sheer pure coincidence that the PS5 and Xbox release on the same day, for the same gen, and Nintendo have their own release schedule completely out of sync to the other two?

Oh, and one of them also happens to be a portable device?

I get second hand embarrassment from ya'll

 

[feynoob]

I don't know what metric you're using. Both consoles have games of similar performance levels. Visual fidelity is and should not be a factor in an official filing of all places.

It's the same as Sonys statement about Switch only being relevant for younger audiences from a few days ago.

It's not a viable factor to exclude the most successful of the three consoles at all.

Switch isnt the same as xbox and PS.

Its underpowered system. Look at the storage of the device.

The system cant even run COD proberly. Not to mention, it doesnt even have most of big 3rd party games.

So no, Switch isnt the same as them.

 

[adamsapple]

This just in : 'Anonymous watchdog says yo momma so dumb she sits on the TV, and watches the couch! '

More news at 11

I don't think you need to look anywhere else for that second hand embarrassment zeke

Waiting for the realisation to suddenly dawn on all these regulators so keen to narrow the market of "serious gaming" to recognise the non-serious Nintendo 'monopoly', that they've got no problem leaving sailing in the wind.

Meanwhile, 2022 fan voted (serious) game of the year; Elden Ring is routinely compared with 2017 (non-serious) GOTY Breath of the Wild.

Again, Hoeg's video covers this well.

Their tactic is to try and reduce the market to make the case appear stronger than it actually is.

It's probably not gonna hold even a tiny candle in the courts.

It is what it is and FTC's arguments and reductiveness is low quality.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Oh look it's as if you need to read more than forum posts in order to actually know how to read.

Nobody reads books, nobody reads long articles, everybody drinking energy drinks slaying monsters on souls clone #23 or shooting people in call of dumb

 

[Ezekiel_]

2/10


Stick to the "LOL" emojis please.

Did you feel personally attacked by my post?

Cause an anonymous watchdog is telling me... You know what, never mind

 

[feynoob]

That is all we need.

 

[adamsapple]

Like I said, completely different cases and commitments being offered and people keep trying to draw correlation between the two is inaccurate.

 

[feynoob]

For hoeg fans.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Like I said, completely different cases and commitments being offered and people keep trying to draw correlation between the two is inaccurate.

Microsoft made the argument that it makes little financial sense to make COD exclusive

They also used that same argument in regard to Zenimax

As i've said I don't believe COD is going to go exclusive, but the comparisons are justified regardless

 

[adamsapple]

For hoeg fans.

I don't think or hope anyone here has said the FTC outright lied, but there is a mismatch in what they said and what EU responded with when asked.

 

[MisterXDTV]

Like I said, completely different cases and commitments being offered and people keep trying to draw correlation between the two is inaccurate.

Why?

Microsoft doesn't OWN Activision right now, so they can't offer a commitment on paper in any way

Sony would have to take their word for it....

Good luck with that after what they did with ZeniMax despite telling EU that "they had no reason to make them exclusive"....

 

[feynoob]

I don't think or hope anyone here has said the FTC outright lied, but there is a mismatch in what they said and what EU responded with when asked.

This is perfect response.

Microsoft made the argument that it makes little financial sense to make COD exclusive

They also used that same argument in regard to Zenimax

As i've said I don't believe COD is going to go exclusive, but the comparisons are justified regardless

FTC is looking at this angle.

Remember, MS has New user target to make the game exclusive. They could use that for any activision games. That is what the FTC is looking after.

They dont want to give MS that option, as that allows them to make the game exclusive.

They dont want to repeat facebook error.

 

[OsirisBlack]

Do people not pay attention to the remaining texts?

MS told EU it was case by case. Not that they were going to put the games there, unlike COD here. Even EU highlighted the process to do it.

That isn't the FTC argument. Has nothing to do with their argument. words mean things MS said that they had "NO INCENTIVE TO MAKE GAMES EXCLUSIVE AND KEEP THEM AWAY FROM OTHER PLATFORMS" then went and did just that. I think its BS but it does seem the FTC's entire argument is based on MS history and the fact that they cannot be trusted to keep their word. And the FACT that Phil opened his big mouth and said that this is just the start. (talking about purchasing publishers/companies)

Here's the truth NO corporation should be trusted or taken at face value (especially not Nintendo where the fuck is my metroid prime 4) jokes aside I don't think they would be having this much backlash if they had handled the Zenimax acquisition to the letter of what they stated in the official document. Before its brought up there were no promises to release anything in the future on anything outside of their box. Just read (an comprehend) the bit about sales numbers and incentive.

 

[adamsapple]

Why?

Microsoft doesn't OWN Activision right now, so they can't offer a commitment on paper in any way

Sony would have to take their words for it....

Good luck with that after what they did with ZeniMax despite telling EU "that they had no reason to make them exclusive"....

All of MSs commitments depend on the acquisition being complete, they are not signing any contracts on Acti's behalf.

They have never said anything to make it seem otherwise.

 

[Topher]

It is what it is and FTC's arguments and reductiveness is low quality.

I can't believe you are even being serious right now. This has nothing to do with "quality" and no, Switch is not remotely at the same performance level as Xbox/PS.

 

[MisterXDTV]

All of MSs commitments depend on the acquisition being complete, they are not signing any contracts on Acti's behalf.

They have never said anything to make it seem otherwise.

That's exactly my point...

What happens if the deal passes and Microsoft and then tells Sony: "You know what, we changed our mind, pay us 100 millions/year to have CoD on PS5"

Then it's too late for any regulator to do anything about it

 

[feynoob]

That isn't the FTC argument. Has nothing to do with their argument. words mean things MS said that they had "NO INCENTIVE TO MAKE GAMES EXCLUSIVE AND KEEP THEM AWAY FROM OTHER PLATFORMS" then went and did just that. I think its BS but it does seem the FTC's entire argument is based on MS history and the fact that they cannot be trusted to keep their word. And the FACT that Phil opened his big mouth and said that this is just the start. (talking about purchasing publishers/companies)

Here's the truth NO corporation should be trusted or taken at face value (especially not Nintendo where the fuck is my metroid prime 4) jokes aside I don't think they would be having this much backlash if they had handled the Zenimax acquisition to the letter of what they stated in the official document. Before its brought up there were no promises to release anything in the future on anything outside of their box. Just read (an comprehend) the bit about sales numbers and incentive.

The problem is this section from EU.

108: The Notifying Party explains that the profitability of a strategy to make ZeniMax games exclusive to the Xbox console would depend on a trade-off between: (i) the value of attracting new players to the Xbox ecosystem; and (ii) the lost income from the sale of ZeniMax games for rival consoles (through the related storefronts). In this regard, the Notifying Party forecasts that a significant share of ZeniMax games sales will occur on rival consoles over the life cycle of the newly released console generation.106 Based on such a trade-off, the Notifying Party submits that a hypothetical console exclusivity strategy would be profitable only if it led to an increase in the number of Xbox users [forecast million] over the next five years, corresponding to an increase in Xbox shipments [forecast percentage] above the forecast level.107

This allows MS to make the game exclusive.

FTC doesnt want this option. Options like this allowed the error of facebook, which the ftc is trying to fix it badly.

 

[adamsapple]

That's exactly my point...

What happens if the deal passes and Microsoft and then tells Sony: "You know what, we changed our mind, pay us 100 millions/year to have CoD on PS5"

Then it's too late for any regulator to do anything about it

1. They would not do that, it would be a PR nightmare and sour their relationship with fans and other developers/publishers.

They literally have 0 reason to do that. It makes absolutely no sense for them to make these commitments then recant them.

They've just entered into a 10 year agreement with Nintendo as well.

It would be a monumentally dumb product ending move to do that.

2. They can be sued for doing that to the bolded point.

If it requires concessions from any regulator, it would become a legal issue for them to go back on it.

 

[feynoob]

Facebook lawsuit is a good lesson for this deal. FTC doesnt want this to happen, as MS already purchased Zenimax, and would purchase Activision.

According to the FTC's complaint, Facebook targeted potential competitive threats to its dominance. Instagram, a rapidly growing startup, emerged at a critical time in personal social networking competition, when users of personal social networking services were migrating from desktop computers to smartphones, and when consumers were increasingly embracing photo-sharing. The complaint alleges that Facebook executives, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg, quickly recognized that Instagram was a vibrant and innovative personal social network and an existential threat to Facebook's monopoly power.

The complaint alleges that Facebook initially tried to compete with Instagram on the merits by improving its own offerings, but Facebook ultimately chose to buy Instagram rather than compete with it. Facebook's acquisition of Instagram for $1 billion in April 2012 allegedly both neutralizes the direct threat posed by Instagram and makes it more difficult for another personal social networking competitor to gain scale.

The complaint alleges that, by 2012, WhatsApp had emerged as the clear global "category leader" in mobile messaging. Again, according to the complaint, Facebook chose to buy an emerging threat rather than compete, and announced an agreement in February 2014 to acquire WhatsApp for $19 billion. Facebook's acquisition of WhatsApp allegedly both neutralizes the prospect that WhatsApp itself might threaten Facebook's personal social networking monopoly and ensures that any future threat will have a more difficult time gaining scale in mobile messaging.

The complaint also alleges that Facebook, over many years, has imposed anticompetitive conditions on third-party software developers' access to valuable interconnections to its platform, such as the application programming interfaces ("APIs") that allow the developers' apps to interface with Facebook. In particular, Facebook allegedly has made key APIs available to third-party applications only on the condition that they refrain from developing competing functionalities, and from connecting with or promoting other social networking services.

The complaint alleges that Facebook has enforced these policies by cutting off API access to blunt perceived competitive threats from rival personal social networking services, mobile messaging apps, and other apps with social functionalities. For example, in 2013, Twitter launched the app Vine, which allowed users to shoot and share short video segments. In response, according to the complaint, Facebook shut down the API that would have allowed Vine to access friends via Facebook.

 

[OsirisBlack]

The problem is this section from EU.


This allows MS to make the game exclusive.

FTC doesnt want this option. Options like this allowed the error of facebook, which the ftc is trying to fix it badly.

I would agree with this outside of this part .

the lost income from the sale of ZeniMax games for rival consoles (through the related storefronts). In this regard, the Notifying Party forecasts that a significant share of ZeniMax games sales will occur on rival consoles over the life cycle of the newly released console generation.

Skyrim and Fallout say hello I don't care which side you're on you cannot argue that point.

 

[MisterXDTV]

1. They would not do that, it would be a PR nightmare and sour their relationship with fans and other developers/publishers.

They literally have 0 reason to do that. It makes absolutely no sense for them to make these commitments then recant them.

They've just entered into a 10 year agreement with Nintendo as well.

It would be a monumentally dumb product ending move to do that.

2. They can be sued for doing that to the bolded point.

Why should their care about Playstation fans?

Other developers would be happy with Activision gone as a third-party publisher as that would open up the market for them

The Nintendo deal was smokescreen to get the deal approved by the regulators...

It's not really a competitor for Microsoft in any way

 

[noise36]

This thread is amazing!

FTC: MS lied to EU about ZeniMax !!!!

Sonygaf: MS lied to EU about ZeniMax !!!!

Next day.

EU: The ZeniMax approval was unconditional

How embarrassing for the FTC.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

This thread is amazing!

FTC: MS Lied about ZeniMax !!!!

Sonygaf: MS Lied about ZeniMax !!!!

Next day.

EU: The ZeniMax approval was unconditional because it wouldn't materially impact competition regardless.

This ain't chief

 

[feynoob]

Skyrim and Fallout say hello I don't care which side you're on you cannot argue that point.

That is the part that MS needs to cover. If they dont have the userbase by that time, then they are in trouble.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

This thread is amazing!

FTC: MS Lied about ZeniMax !!!!

Sonygaf: MS Lied about ZeniMax !!!!

Next day.

EU: The ZeniMax approval was unconditional because it wouldn't materially impact competition regardless.

You should probably read a bit more

 

[adamsapple]

Why should their care about Playstation fans?

Other developers would be happy with Activision gone as a third-party publisher as that would open up the market for them

The Nintendo deal was smokescreen to get the deal approved by the regulators...

It's not really a competitor for Microsoft in any way

You're looking at it from a very extreme scorched earth perspective.

Even Totilo mentioned that they didn't promise anything about Zenimax stuff unlike CoD.

It is not the same case in the slightest.

If this goes to concessions, that would make it even more unlikely, and not legally allowed, for them to recant it.

 

[feynoob]

From facebook issues, This is what MS exhibits the most.

Gamepass allows MS to make COD exclusive, should they hit above 50m. By that time, MS can absorb the loss of PS revenue. This will tilt the balance of consoles.

FTC doesnt want that.

 

[Menzies]

For hoeg fans.

This is great. Why did the FTC have to cite the EU regulator and not their own. Is it because their own jurisdiction found no foreclosure concern??

 

[MisterXDTV]

You're looking at it from a very extreme scorched earth perspective.

Even Totilo mentioned that they didn't promise anything about Zenimax stuff unlike CoD.

It is not the same case in the slightest.

They didn't need to promise anything for Zenimax because it was a much smaller deal...

They knew they had to make promises for a 70 BILLION deal on the biggest third party publisher in the industry

 

[adamsapple]

This was posted in the other thread but worth posting here too I guess.

The CWA are all in for the merger to go through.

CWA Statement on the FTC’s Decision to Sue to Block the Microsoft/Activision Deal

By moving to file a lawsuit in administrative court to block Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard, the Federal Trade Commission has missed an opportunity to demonstrate that it takes the labor impact of mergers seriously.

cwa-union.org

Approving this merger with the labor agreement that we fashioned with Microsoft to protect collective bargaining rights would have sent a game-changing message to corporate America that workers do indeed have a seat at the table and their concerns matter and must be addressed. We believe the FTC's case is not likely to convince a federal judge, particularly as the European Commission may move to approve the deal, and that workers at Activision Blizzard will finally have the opportunity to improve their wages, benefits and working conditions through their union.

They didn't need to promise anything for Zenimax because it was a much smaller deal...

They knew they had to make them for a 70 BILLION deal on the biggest third party publisher in the industry

Yes and it would be an EXTREMELY idiotic move to not follow through on the commitments they're making.

That shit will be challenged in all the courts so fast and injunctions would be put on product sales that it would be a literal nightmare.

aka I see absolutely no scenario where they don't follow through on their concessions, if the merger is approved.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

This was posted in the other thread but worth posting here too I guess.

The CWA are all in for the merger to go through.

CWA Statement on the FTC’s Decision to Sue to Block the Microsoft/Activision Deal

By moving to file a lawsuit in administrative court to block Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard, the Federal Trade Commission has missed an opportunity to demonstrate that it takes the labor impact of mergers seriously.

cwa-union.org

Yes and it would be an EXTREMELY idiotic move to not follow through on the commitments they're making.

That shit will be challenged in all the courts so fast and injunctions would be put on product sales that it would be a literal nightmare.

aka I see absolutely no scenario where they don't follow through on their concessions, if the merger is approved.

Well...I think there is a loophole

 

[feynoob]

This is great. Why did the FTC have to cite the EU regulator and not their own. Is it because their own jurisdiction found no foreclosure concern??

Because of facebook.

Facebook bought their competitors, instead of actually competing with those apps.

FTC wants to stop that. That report shows MS has the ability to make them exclusive.

Section 108 would give you clear idea, how MS is going to achieve that.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Because of facebook.

Facebook bought their competitors, instead of actually competing with those apps.

FTC wants to stop that. That report shows MS has the ability to make them exclusive.

Section 108 would give you clear idea, how MS is going to achieve that.

Yet...in that dumbass lawsuit; this topic is not pointed out.

 

[noise36]

This was posted in the other thread but worth posting here too I guess.

The CWA are all in for the merger to go through.

CWA Statement on the FTC’s Decision to Sue to Block the Microsoft/Activision Deal

By moving to file a lawsuit in administrative court to block Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard, the Federal Trade Commission has missed an opportunity to demonstrate that it takes the labor impact of mergers seriously.

cwa-union.org

How about this bit.

Instead, the FTC has once again focused its analysis solely on consumer harms and, in this case, console-market leader Sony's concerns about increased competition.

The elephant in the room getting called out.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

This is great. Why did the FTC have to cite the EU regulator and not their own. Is it because their own jurisdiction found no foreclosure concern??

Neither of them found foreclosure concern. They're citing a clear example of dishonesty on Microsoft's part. Odd straw man from a lawyer.

 

[adamsapple]

How about this bit.



The elephant in the room getting called out.

Unfortunately CWA isn't as big of a factor in this lawsuit so they can't really do much other than give their recommendation.

 

[feynoob]

Yet...in that dumbass lawsuit; this topic is not pointed out.

FTC is having some series issues internally. So their work is underpowered, and lacks actual key points. I liked the CMA points more.

Antitrust | MLex | Specialist news and analysis on legal risk and regulation

News and analysis on legal developments including litigation filings, case settlements, verdicts, regulation, enforcement, legislation, corporate deals, and business of law.

mlexmarketinsight.com