Support NeoGAF

[demigod]

I suggest you give up.

As an arsenal fan, never hope for anything. As they say, it's the hope that kills you.

Btw what was hoeg and idas response to this? Told y'all they don't know shit.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Right here guaranteeing the deal is getting done. Just stay where you are and don't go missing over the next year and change lol.

BUT if the EU doesn't side with this thing... well, that's all she wrote.

I don't appreciate these regulators dragging out the W I know I'm about to get like this, but it's all good. Something this valuable being chased by Microsoft should never come so easy. Were it a transaction I were against, I'd appreciate the same difficulty level.

I'll admit I was initially taken aback by the decision, but then I remembered.. fight!

In your defence you were still banned when I post this multiple times - while being emojied by johnjohn, catlady et al

https://www.clearyantitrustwatch.co...threshold-for-review-of-cma-merger-decisions/

Please read that article in full (the domain and url should give you a hint) and then reply how they will possibly fight. It is completely done, because the CMA slimmed the decision down so an arrogant $2T company of 30years of suspected anti-trust would have no means to litigate.

As we speak Microsoft are probably throwing things at their very expensive British solicitors, with the solicitors telling them - as advocates of the British courts - there are no options left, and that they - personally as solicitors - could face consequence from the Uk bar for appealing without a valid legal reason.

 

[GHG]

Right here guaranteeing the deal is getting done. Just stay where you are and don't go missing over the next year and change lol.

$200 an hour?

$200 an hour.

 

[MasterCornholio]

$3 billion breakup fee has got to hurt, even if it's Microsoft.
Microsoft should have known this deal would be difficult to pass, before agreeing with the absurd breakup fee. Sheer incompetence.
Any other company, Phil Spencer would have his head in a noose.

When they first started they made it sound like it was going to be easy. I'm not sure if that was just PR or if they really didn't know how difficult it was going to be. Seems like they offered way less than they should of. They could have gotten this through but it would have required a much bigger sacrifice from them than just a simple 10 year deal.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

This is all so naive(or ignorant)... Regulators work together all the time. There is nothing illegal or suspicious on that. That is one of the OECDs policies when it comes to regulation.

Well, last response on the matter. Yes, regulators work together and that's expected. It makes sense to get a global understanding of markets and what each side is finding out and learning, and using that to better inform current decisions on current cases, but also to learn more for future cases in similar markets.

That all said, you don't do it when you're currently suing to block a deal in active court proceedings in the United States by meeting with the head of other regulatory body in the country that's due to make a decision in the very next week or so. You also damn sure don't do it in person! So that's just me. If people disagree with that simple thing it's obviously only because they have a preference for the outcome that was rendered, but it doesn't look good. Fully expect Microsoft's lawyers, if they deem it necessary, to make it a legal matter. Consider they already briefly teased challenging the constitutionality of FTC Commissioners seeming strong protections from removal by the current President despite laws suggesting the President should have that authority.

Microsoft briefly teased in its FTC case those constitutional arguments. And now you had that in person meeting. She basically created a massive vulnerability. There is a legitimate claim to be made about the ethics and legality of that meeting. Even things that typically don't appear to have legal merit can still go to court and have surprising outcomes with the power of a Federal Judge. Just paying attention to what goes on tells us that much.

And I'm done.

 

[demigod]

First, I have over $15k in activision stock. So that's the first part. Second, this makes Xbox and Game Pass wayyyy better. I want that. It makes the industry more competitive, it means way more day one big first-party games in game pass. Anybody telling anybody who wants the deal approved that they're not getting anything isn't really being forthcoming.

There is a difference with having to either pay $69.99 to buy a game outright, or maybe a game I wouldn't buy anyway because I'm not that interested, compared to a game dropping into game pass effectively free, and now because it's there I suddenly try it because all skepticism is gone.. cause Game Pass. I turn out to enjoy it. Win, win for my favorite hobby on my preferred platform. And just what the deal does for Xbox financially alone is another thing that can end up making Xbox first party as well as game pass better. It may help them land more big AAA third party day ones due to the money swirling around. The more Game Pass grows the more likely Game Pass keeps being awesome for people that love Game Pass.

And, as seen in the case of Bethesda, when Microsoft acquires something, they seek to create exclusive games from it. It just won't be Call of Duty. I want more exclusives to come because I personally feel, even when I'm annoyed at specific exclusive deals, it helps the industry overall. It's competition. I as a PS5 owner want Sony under pressure. I as an Xbox owner, wants Xbox to get its ass kicked here and there. I'm a big believer in the "let them fight" mantra. The more Microsoft and Sony are fighting, the better it is for me.

If Sony doesn't kick Microsoft's ass on Xbox One, you all know we don't get Game Pass, right? So now I like Game Pass, and I want it to be strengthened as much as possible. Therefore I fully support this deal for that reason.

It's not free you goof. You probably spent more on gamepass since it's inception full price vs sony fans buying their first party games.

 

[Thirty7ven]

The EC will approve, they are not what they were before. Politically driven and fine hunting regulator.

But it was fun, gotta thank the CMA for being a G. It's GMA on my book.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Well, last response on the matter. Yes, regulators work together and that's expected. It makes sense to get a global understanding of markets and what each side is finding out and learning, and using that to better inform current decisions on current cases, but also to learn more for future cases in similar markets.

That all said, you don't do it when you're currently suing to block a deal in active court proceedings in the United States by meeting with the head of other regulatory body in the country that's due to make a decision in the very next week or so. You also damn sure don't do it in person! So that's just me. If people disagree with that simple thing it's obviously only because they have a preference for the outcome that was rendered, but it doesn't look good. Fully expect Microsoft's lawyers, if they deem it necessary, to make it a legal matter. Consider they already briefly teased challenging the constitutionality of FTC Commissioners seeming strong protections from removal by the current President despite laws suggesting the President should have that authority.

Microsoft briefly teased in its FTC case those constitutional arguments. And now you had that in person meeting. She basically created a massive vulnerability. There is a legitimate claim to be made about the ethics and legality of that meeting. Even things that typically don't appear to have legal merit can still go to court and have surprising outcomes with the power of a Federal Judge. Just paying attention to what goes on tells us that much.

And I'm done.

The FTC claims they never met with them though, so why are you pushing Kotick's cuntspiracy theory? The same guy you all said Activation needs rescuing from.

 

[feynoob]

Btw what was hoeg and idas response to this? Told y'all they don't know shit.

MS can appeal, but the EU decision will mess up that appeal badly.

With cma and ftc block, and potential EU block, the only MS and activision will have is to abandon the deal.

Unless these guys are sure of eu decision???, I don't see a way out from this.

 

[LordCBH]

Unless you're being sarcastic, you're an even bigger clown than I thought.

The odds of a successful CAT appeal are as small as me winning the lottery. CMA has said no. FTC is suing to block. That's two of the big four. Doesn't really matter what the EC does. It's done. Accept it. Move on. Microsoft is now, and will always be, a third place also-ran in the gaming space.

Edit: Nvm, I read the rest of your ridiculous posts. You're not just A clown, you're the entire clown car.

He ain't the clown car. He's the entire circus.

 

[PaintTinJr]

$200 an hour?

$200 an hour.

That is probably 15year old rates.

It must be at least $550 an hour - or the cost of SeriesX with sales tax, a spare pad and 4x AA batteries

 

[FrankWza]

Followed by 4 paragraphs of gamepass

 

[DeepEnigma]

MS can appeal, but the EU decision will mess up that appeal badly.

With cma and ftc block, and potential EU block, the only MS and activision will have is to abandon the deal.

Unless these guys are sure of eu decision???, I don't see a way out from this.

Xbox isn't even relevant in the rest of the EU. US and UK are their two largest markets.

The two largest markets are against the deal.

 

[GHG]

I don't understand all the legal stuff, hence my questions but from your descriptions if these streaming services want to be viable for a mainstream audience they are going to be in nvidias position right and need publishers approval?

Yeh that does indeed seem to be the case, it seems to be a combination of how the service is marketed and how the user interface works. My suspicion is that anything that would make it anything beyond a "rented computer" is the abstraction.

None of that takes away from the fact that as things stand today (in terms of how the service works and what's available on it) Microsoft are being misleading with their PR here.

 

[feynoob]

Xbox isn't even relevant in the rest of the EU. US and UK are their two largest markets.

The two largest markets are against the deal.

The eu kills any hope for potential appeal.

 

[MasterCornholio]

First, I have over $15k in activision stock. So that's the first part. Second, this makes Xbox and Game Pass wayyyy better. I want that. It makes the industry more competitive, it means way more day one big first-party games in game pass. Anybody telling anybody who wants the deal approved that they're not getting anything isn't really being forthcoming.

There is a difference with having to either pay $69.99 to buy a game outright, or maybe a game I wouldn't buy anyway because I'm not that interested, compared to a game dropping into game pass effectively free, and now because it's there I suddenly try it because all skepticism is gone.. cause Game Pass. I turn out to enjoy it. Win, win for my favorite hobby on my preferred platform. And just what the deal does for Xbox financially alone is another thing that can end up making Xbox first party as well as game pass better. It may help them land more big AAA third party day ones due to the money swirling around. The more Game Pass grows the more likely Game Pass keeps being awesome for people that love Game Pass.

And, as seen in the case of Bethesda, when Microsoft acquires something, they seek to create exclusive games from it. It just won't be Call of Duty. I want more exclusives to come because I personally feel, even when I'm annoyed at specific exclusive deals, it helps the industry overall. It's competition. I as a PS5 owner want Sony under pressure. I as an Xbox owner, wants Xbox to get its ass kicked here and there. I'm a big believer in the "let them fight" mantra. The more Microsoft and Sony are fighting, the better it is for me.

If Sony doesn't kick Microsoft's ass on Xbox One, you all know we don't get Game Pass, right? So now I like Game Pass, and I want it to be strengthened as much as possible. Therefore I fully support this deal for that reason.

There's nothing wrong with supporting developers by buying their games. Both systems can exist.

 

[Banjo64]

It's actually not something that anyone in the middle of ongoing litigation with a specific set of parties would ever want to be caught doing, especially when the person they met with is the head of the very government body due to make a massive decision in a case that's relevant to your current goals in the next week or so. A decision with direct legal implications on the very thing you're in ongoing litigation (FTC case against Microsoft currently) with the parties on. It's very legally problematic if not possibly illegal. But for the sake of arguments let's assume it isn't outright illegal, but nobody can disagree that it has a look of being highly suspect.

Should Microsoft and Activision decide to do it, the Supreme Court has quite literally just granted all parties the power to take its arguments about the current FTC structure and other matters on a constitutional basis directly to Federal District Court and the District Court HAS to hear them out and allow the complaint to proceed and be litigated. There were already countless avenues available to Microsoft to beat the FTC in the USA before that meeting between Khan and the head of the CMA, in person, in Washington, a week and a half before the decision on the 26th.

Lina Khan has just opened up a pretty massive door that lawyers are almost certainly already contemplating stepping right through. Bobby Kotick didn't mention that meeting as a random throwaway. It was done for both political pressure reasons, as well as for legal reasons. Surely by now everybody must realize that Microsoft will engage in every legal maneuver available to them to fight for this deal. There was a time people thought the FTC blocking was a dead deal. Here we are still. CMA should have been the end also. But here we are. And the CMA was just reversed in CAT and forced to revise and approve a deal just in the last two years, with 3 of the same people involved in this inquiry being involved in the last one they got overturned on.

So that's my full answer. Lina Khan messed up. Regardless of what anybody thinks about the outcome of this deal, that meeting is something that should have never taken place purely on common sense grounds, and the Supreme Court 9-0 ruling against the FTC gives Microsoft a whole bunch of avenues in which to exploit it in federal district court. They wouldn't even need to necessarily prove the deal was discussed between them, the appearance alone could be enough to harm the FTC's fight against Microsoft. There is a legal and ethical standard that all federal courts below the Supreme Court follow and expect potential parties before them to adhere to. I guarantee there are federal laws also governing Khan's conduct or appearance of conduct in the position she's in that are only amplified WHILE engaging in litigation with two merging companies.

This is almost like catching Brad Smith or Phil Spencer together meeting with a federal judge due to decide on their merger in federal court at Microsoft HQ just a mere week or days before the decision is to come down, and then surprise! It goes exactly how Microsoft wants it to. The parties can go around trying to do the charm offensive. Lina Khan can not in her current position, especially that close to a decision while in active litigation.

The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type any given text, such as this post.

 

[GHG]

It's not free you goof. You probably spent more on gamepass since it's inception full price vs sony fans buying their first party games.

It is in fact free for him. He admitted as such here before.

 

[DeepEnigma]

The eu kills any hope for potential appeal.

Appeal isn't a guarantee. In fact, going by history, the chances are pretty much nil.

The CMA seemed pretty adamant they are set in stone, and the UK gov themselves told MS to pipe down on the theatrics and they stand by the CMAs third party decision.

 

[Banjo64]

It is in fact free for him. He admitted as such here before.

How so?

 

[PaintTinJr]

The EC will approve, they are not what they were before. Politically driven and fine hunting regulator.

But it was fun, gotta thank the CMA for being a G. It's GMA on my book.

/edit:

IIRC reading the lead chair at CMA - Martin, Coleman- speeches on the CMA site, I think he was pre-brexit a working at the EC on the UK's behalf.

/edit

I got that wrong, it wasn't an EU working group but a CMA merger for two US companies he chaired that blocked a merger after the FTC lost their case in US court

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/martin-coleman-speech-to-the-law-society-2022

Multi-jurisdictional cases

Let me return to a theme that I mentioned at the outset – the enhanced role for the panel in multi-jurisdictional mergers following EU exit. Groups made decisions on multi-jurisdictional mergers before EU exit. I chaired the Sabre / Farelogix merger inquiry where we had jurisdiction in parallel with the US Department of Justice (DoJ). In fact since we have had independent jurisdiction from the EU, 16 parallel cases have been launched with the EU compared with 14 cases investigated in parallel with the DoJ / FTC.

 

[X-Wing]

Well, last response on the matter. Yes, regulators work together and that's expected. It makes sense to get a global understanding of markets and what each side is finding out and learning, and using that to better inform current decisions on current cases, but also to learn more for future cases in similar markets.

That all said, you don't do it when you're currently suing to block a deal in active court proceedings in the United States by meeting with the head of other regulatory body in the country that's due to make a decision in the very next week or so. You also damn sure don't do it in person! So that's just me. If people disagree with that simple thing it's obviously only because they have a preference for the outcome that was rendered, but it doesn't look good. Fully expect Microsoft's lawyers, if they deem it necessary, to make it a legal matter. Consider they already briefly teased challenging the constitutionality of FTC Commissioners seeming strong protections from removal by the current President despite laws suggesting the President should have that authority.

Microsoft briefly teased in its FTC case those constitutional arguments. And now you had that in person meeting. She basically created a massive vulnerability. There is a legitimate claim to be made about the ethics and legality of that meeting. Even things that typically don't appear to have legal merit can still go to court and have surprising outcomes with the power of a Federal Judge. Just paying attention to what goes on tells us that much.

And I'm done.

Who the fuck determines that, you?
Second, you have no evidence that they met to discuss this merger.

 

[Nydius]

$3 billion breakup fee has got to hurt, even if it's Microsoft.

I don't know. The way they wrote off NOKIA at the cost of $7.8 billion without blinking an eye really highlighted that Microsoft plays with Monopoly (the board game) money. Someone (probably Brad Smith) will be given the boot to appease angry shareholders and stakeholders but then the loss will probably be forgotten as the rest of Microsoft's divisions chug along.

 

[Astray]

First, I have over $15k in activision stock.

Assuming you are talking about present value of your stocks, then no wonder you are screaming.

I'd be screaming too if I lost over $1800 in two days on console war bullshit.

I'm not sure this will help in any way. The EU has already expressed similar concerns to the CMA when it comes to cloud gaming, that alone already reduces the chances of a successful appeal.

EU expressed similar concerns, but that doesn't guarantee similar results. If they get approval from there, then there is a non-zero chance that it might help them vs CMA in the appeal process. It's feeling unlikely yes, but prefer leaving the counting of chickens to others.

$3 billion breakup fee has got to hurt, even if it's Microsoft.
Microsoft should have known this deal would be difficult to pass, before agreeing with the absurd breakup fee. Sheer incompetence.
Any other company, Phil Spencer would have his head in a noose.

Spencer genuinely feels like he's on borrowed time, but we said this over and over and it's still not happened. Microsoft is just completely non-dependant on gaming revenue now, so normal business logic doesn't really apply.

 

[DR3AM]

Probably asked a million times but is the deal officially dead? If not, what needs to happen to get it approved?

 

[GHG]

How so?

Here:

Just add context, that's how Xbox treats their fans. At every fanfest Microsoft loads up 500+ of their fans with all kinds of free shit. Free gaming headphones, external drives, free games, free subscriptions, you name it. All 500 Xbox Fanfest attendees in 2017 in LA all received these. Inside that black fanfest card holder is a year worth of game pass. Despite the card holder already having a year + of game pass, execs while standing around handed us even more.

Xbox spoils its fans.

Technically there is no loophole if Microsoft knows about it and still tells people about it. Also, there are limits lol.

In order to keep getting that first month for $1 game pass deal, you have to use an entirely different credit/debit card or game pass account every single time. I don't think people are grabbing a new credit or debit card every month just to keep that going. The significant majority are more or less paying full price for game pass if they keep it beyond 1 month.

As to converting xbox live gold to game pass ultimate for up to 36 months aka 3 years #1 - you already paid Microsoft for gold or game pass to begin with. #2 - you can only do it one time only as a new game pass customer. #3 - they actually log your credit/debit card to prevent you from abusing the promotion again and again.

This is the same way services like crunchyroll prevent people from abusing their various promotional deals. They log your credit and debit cards to make sure you can't do it again unless they decide to offer you another chance by way of removing the limit for a customer they want to come back. Uber and instacart are both known for doing this.

People that say this are giving people wayyyyy too much credit. Most people ain't got the time to be trying this hard to cheap out on a service that's already so damn cheap to begin with lol. So people just go ahead and $9.99 per month or $14.99. When game pass first dropped, Xbox execs handed me like 3 years worth of game pass free on a card at Xbox Fanfest 2017. I gave one to a friend's son, and kept two for myself. I've been paying for game pass monthly non-stop since june 2019. And since Ultimate dropped, I've been paying monthly for that also.

He's part of that inner circle for his "work" for sure.

Cult gonna cult.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I'd be screaming too if I lost over $1800 in two days on console war bullshit.

I mean if someone let's console warring ruin their investments then they really shouldn't invest in the first place.

It's like asking Tim Dog what stocks to invest in.

 

[Thirty7ven]

IIRC reading the lead chair at CMA - Martin, someone - speeches on the CMA site, I think he was pre-brexit a working at the EC on the UK's behalf.

Whatever that means. EC goes along with that whole independent company keeping tabs on MS. EU has also been faced with corruption scandals in recent times and when you have people from a bunch of different countries weighing it always leaves an open door somewhere for lobbying to do its thing.

 

[Topher]

Well, last response on the matter. Yes, regulators work together and that's expected. It makes sense to get a global understanding of markets and what each side is finding out and learning, and using that to better inform current decisions on current cases, but also to learn more for future cases in similar markets.

That all said, you don't do it when you're currently suing to block a deal in active court proceedings in the United States by meeting with the head of other regulatory body in the country that's due to make a decision in the very next week or so. You also damn sure don't do it in person! So that's just me. If people disagree with that simple thing it's obviously only because they have a preference for the outcome that was rendered, but it doesn't look good. Fully expect Microsoft's lawyers, if they deem it necessary, to make it a legal matter. Consider they already briefly teased challenging the constitutionality of FTC Commissioners seeming strong protections from removal by the current President despite laws suggesting the President should have that authority.

Microsoft briefly teased in its FTC case those constitutional arguments. And now you had that in person meeting. She basically created a massive vulnerability. There is a legitimate claim to be made about the ethics and legality of that meeting. Even things that typically don't appear to have legal merit can still go to court and have surprising outcomes with the power of a Federal Judge. Just paying attention to what goes on tells us that much.

And I'm done.

You need to stop pretending you know what you are talking about. The FTC and CMA openly collaborate as many of the issues they face cross borders. The FTC and CMA have said this many times. Here was a statement a couple of years ago.

"We share common goals and are dedicated to close and regular engagement both on the agency head and staff level, as priorities and resources allow. Deeper recognition of our common cause of tackling anticompetitive conduct and mergers opens up possibilities for us to implement robust cross-border enforcement regimes and achieve success in ways that would elude individual agencies working alone.
The Federal Trade Commission works with counterpart agencies to promote sound antitrust, consumer protection, and data privacy enforcement and policy. "

Joint Statement from FTC, DOJ Antitrust Division, and UK Competition and Markets Authority Leadership Following the G7 Competition Enforcers Summit

Leadership of the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice attended meetings in London this week as part of the Competition Enforcers Summit, which took plac

www.ftc.gov

 

[Astray]

Probably asked a million times but is the deal officially dead? If not, what needs to happen to get it approved?

Officially, no.

What needs to happen for it to work is the following:

• CMA decision appeal needs to happen and be successful (very hard to do, hence why the Activision stock dropped and both companies' leaderships are losing their shit).
• EC needs to approve (still pending, but one thing to consider is that they seemingly focused heavily on cloud too).
• FTC court case needs to be won by Activision/Microsoft, whether in the FTC's own court, or Federal.
• China's SAMR needs to approve.

Those are the 4 regulators that matter, because they are mentioned expressly in the deal agreement.

 

[Banjo64]

Probably asked a million times but is the deal officially dead? If not, what needs to happen to get it approved?

Microsoft need to prove at tribunal that the CMA acted irrationally, illegally or with procedural impropriety.

The chances of this being upheld is statistically very slim.

Added to the fact that this was an extremely extensive investigation, I'd say the chance is near 0.

This is further backed by Spencer and Kotick both sending internal memos today alluding to the fact that they'll be fine 'together or apart' or words to that effect, I'd say they know it's practically dead too and all of this screeching is just a precursor to the messy $3b divorce deal.

 

[DeepEnigma]

You need to stop pretending you know what you are talking about. The FTC and CMA opening collaborate as many of the issues they face cross borders. The FTC and CMA have said this many times. Here was a statement a couple of years ago.

"We share common goals and are dedicated to close and regular engagement both on the agency head and staff level, as priorities and resources allow. Deeper recognition of our common cause of tackling anticompetitive conduct and mergers opens up possibilities for us to implement robust cross-border enforcement regimes and achieve success in ways that would elude individual agencies working alone.
The Federal Trade Commission works with counterpart agencies to promote sound antitrust, consumer protection, and data privacy enforcement and policy. "

Joint Statement from FTC, DOJ Antitrust Division, and UK Competition and Markets Authority Leadership Following the G7 Competition Enforcers Summit

Leadership of the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice attended meetings in London this week as part of the Competition Enforcers Summit, which took plac

www.ftc.gov

This whole fiasco around global companies being looked at by global regulators and they are somehow not allowed to share information with one another is pure DESPERARITY to prey on the ignorant.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Here:





He's part of that inner circle for his "work" for sure.

Cult gonna cult.

This is just sad......

I mean wow.

 

[GHG]

I mean if someone let's console warring ruin their investments then they really shouldn't invest in the first place.

It's like asking Tim Dog what stocks to invest in.

It's worse, this is a trade, not an investment. The time horizon for a high probability of profitability is much tighter as a result.

He has zero idea what he's got himself into and how the mechanics of a trade like this works.

To make matters worse, in the high interest environment we're in at the moment he would have been far better off putting that money into bonds or even in a bank for the duration of time that his money has been tied up.

 

[Topher]

This whole fiasco around global companies being looked at by global regulators and they are somehow not allowed to share information with one another is pure DESPERARITY to prey on the ignorant.

And like you said........Bobby Kotick is the one insinuating this shit. Who the hell takes anything that jackass says at face value?

 

[DeepEnigma]

And like you said........Bobby Kotick is the one insinuating this shit. Who the hell takes anything that jackass says at face value?

Please Understand™

 

[Dick Jones]

$200 an hour?

$200 an hour.

The deal is going through.

Microsoft pay me via my PayPal account @bigdickjones69247 and I will send more irrational comments.

 

[MasterCornholio]

It's worse, this is a trade, not an investment. The time horizon for a high probability of profitability is much tighter as a result.

He has zero idea what he's got himself into and how the mechanics of a trade like this works.

To make matters worse, in the high interest environment we're in at the moment he would have been far better off putting that money into bonds or even in a bank for the duration of time that his money has been tied up.

You need to think logically with the stock market. Letting emotions control your investments is a very bad idea.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

In your defence you were still banned when I post this multiple times - while being emojied by johnjohn, catlady et al

https://www.clearyantitrustwatch.co...threshold-for-review-of-cma-merger-decisions/

Please read that article in full (the domain and url should give you a hint) and then reply how they will possibly fight. It is completely done, because the CMA slimmed the decision down so an arrogant $2T company of 30years of suspected anti-trust would have no means to litigate.

As we speak Microsoft are probably throwing things at their very expensive British solicitors, with the solicitors telling them - as advocates of the British courts - there are no options left, and that they - personally as solicitors - could face consequence from the Uk bar for appealing without a valid legal reason.

I guess we'll just have to see, won't we? In my opinion it all comes down to what the EU does. If they're against then you're probably right. Outside of that. Till then saved.

It's the same british solicitors telling them now to appeal. You seem to be assigning a lot of brilliance to the very same body whose math errors and other mistakes led to an embarrassing reversal of everything they had said over the console SLC. There are key evidentiary problems with what they arrived at currently. It actually lacked much of the analysis they did for console gaming, and they made many of the same errors but worse, believe it or not. The CMA ran out of time and their pride wouldn't allow them to give Microsoft time to work it out. Microsoft also made some boneheaded mistakes in their remedies that are also their fault for not eliminating those as possible excuses the CMA could use.

You think Microsoft has no chance with its appeal? You're about to find out just how wrong you are, if something doesn't change before any actual appeal goes through. And no, I'm not suggesting the UK government overturn them. The CMA all on its own may realize its flaws as they once did before in this same decision. A potential EU approval, if it happens that way, will strengthen Microsoft's argument.

And, as you say, the CMA "slimmed the decision down." What exactly makes you think Microsoft might not contemplate a scenario where they won't allow the UK to kill their deal globally?

A lot of people have suggested a lot of things Microsoft would never do regarding the FTC, and would never do regarding the CMA. Guess what? Microsoft is doing them all even after the decisions. People better start contemplating a very real scenario where Microsoft legally constructs a framework where they just decide to not place Activision Blizzard games on xbox cloud at all in the UK. That's the ONLY problem they have with the deal in the UK, correct? I don't think Microsoft has a problem with just never putting Activision games on its cloud service in the UK. And before people tell me its impossible. No, it isn't. It's already done in different industries. There is a legal framework for it that exists in UK law.

 

[Astray]

Here:





He's part of that inner circle for his "work" for sure.

Cult gonna cult.

Had no idea that they'd do this shit for like.. forum posters.

The astroturfing is very fucking real.

 

[Banjo64]

That word "guaranteeing"...

I guarantee this will happen, unless it doesn't.

Check out the big brain on this guy.

 

[Dick Jones]

I guess we'll just have to see, won't we? In my opinion it all comes down to what the EU does. If they're against then you're probably right. Outside of that. Till then saved.

It's the same british solicitors telling them now to appeal. You seem to be assigning a lot of brilliance to the very same body whose math errors and other mistakes led to an embarrassing reversal of everything they had said over the console SLC. There are key evidentiary problems with what they arrived at currently. It actually lacked much of the analysis they did for console gaming, and they made many of the same errors but worse, believe it or not. The CMA ran out of time and their pride wouldn't allow them to give Microsoft time to work it out. Microsoft also made some boneheaded mistakes in their remedies that are also their fault for not eliminating those as possible excuses the CMA could use.

You think Microsoft has no chance with its appeal? You're about to find out just how wrong you are, if something doesn't change before any actual appeal goes through. And no, I'm not suggesting the UK government overturn them. The CMA all on its own may realize its flaws as they once did before in this same decision. A potential EU approval, if it happens that way, will strengthen Microsoft's argument.

And, as you say, the CMA "slimmed the decision down." What exactly makes you think Microsoft might not contemplate a scenario where they won't allow the UK to kill their deal globally?

A lot of people have suggested a lot of things Microsoft would never do regarding the FTC, and would never do regarding the CMA. Guess what? Microsoft is doing them all even after the decisions. People better start contemplating a very real scenario where Microsoft legally constructs a framework where they just decide to not place Activision Blizzard games on xbox cloud at all in the UK. That's the ONLY problem they have with the deal in the UK, correct? I don't think Microsoft has a problem with just never putting Activision games on its cloud service in the UK. And before people tell me its impossible. No, it isn't. It's already done in different industries. There is a legal framework for it that exists in UK law.

The British solicitors want the appeal so they suck more money off MS tits.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I guarantee this will happen, unless it doesn't.

Check out the big brain on this guy.

Like current year "insiders."

 

[Three]

Geforce now last time I used it (been a while now maybe it's changed) let you play your steam/origin/uplay games on a vm aswell. The problem was publishers started stopping them from letting you play your games on geforce now, how is this nware place getting around this? are they just too small that publishers havn't caught on yet?

edit: this is what I was talking about with regards to publishers stopping them.

http://[URL]https://www.pcguide.com/news/another-wave-of-titles-removed-from-geforce-now/

[/URL]

Publishers only asked nicely that they remove it and nvidia usually does so. The legality of it is a slight grey area but I'd imagine that it's as you say, they are small, under the radar, and not worth the legal trouble to challenge. There is a good writeup about the legal side of services like geforce now:

https://www.escapistmagazine.com/may-the-geforce-now-be-with-you-legality-publisher-permission/

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I guess we'll just have to see, won't we? In my opinion it all comes down to what the EU does. If they're against then you're probably right. Outside of that. Till then saved.

It's the same british solicitors telling them now to appeal. You seem to be assigning a lot of brilliance to the very same body whose math errors and other mistakes led to an embarrassing reversal of everything they had said over the console SLC. There are key evidentiary problems with what they arrived at currently. It actually lacked much of the analysis they did for console gaming, and they made many of the same errors but worse, believe it or not. The CMA ran out of time and their pride wouldn't allow them to give Microsoft time to work it out. Microsoft also made some boneheaded mistakes in their remedies that are also their fault for not eliminating those as possible excuses the CMA could use.

You think Microsoft has no chance with its appeal? You're about to find out just how wrong you are, if something doesn't change before any actual appeal goes through. And no, I'm not suggesting the UK government overturn them. The CMA all on its own may realize its flaws as they once did before in this same decision. A potential EU approval, if it happens that way, will strengthen Microsoft's argument.

And, as you say, the CMA "slimmed the decision down." What exactly makes you think Microsoft might not contemplate a scenario where they won't allow the UK to kill their deal globally?

A lot of people have suggested a lot of things Microsoft would never do regarding the FTC, and would never do regarding the CMA. Guess what? Microsoft is doing them all even after the decisions. People better start contemplating a very real scenario where Microsoft legally constructs a framework where they just decide to not place Activision Blizzard games on xbox cloud at all in the UK. That's the ONLY problem they have with the deal in the UK, correct? I don't think Microsoft has a problem with just never putting Activision games on its cloud service in the UK. And before people tell me its impossible. No, it isn't. It's already done in different industries. There is a legal framework for it that exists in UK law.

Dude these are hilariously bad takes.

The UK blocked the merger, they didn't say they can avoid the British market by not doing a specific business element there. Circumventing the CMA's decision would lead to serious fines for Microsoft. These fines can be as much as 10% of a company's annual global revenue… Note, that's revenue not net operating income.

 

[DeepEnigma]

The British solicitors want the appeal so they suck more money off MS tits.

 

[Topher]

The CMA all on its own may realize its flaws as they once did before in this same decision.

No, they didn't. The CMA made changes to their "provisional" findings. That wasn't a change in the "same decision". There was no decision. There you go just making shit up again and again.

 

[Daneel Elijah]

A lot of people have suggested a lot of things Microsoft would never do regarding the FTC, and would never do regarding the CMA. Guess what? Microsoft is doing them all even after the decisions. People better start contemplating a very real scenario where Microsoft legally constructs a framework where they just decide to not place Activision Blizzard games on xbox cloud at all in the UK. That's the ONLY problem they have with the deal in the UK, correct? I don't think Microsoft has a problem with just never putting Activision games on its cloud service in the UK. And before people tell me its impossible. No, it isn't. It's already done in different industries. There is a legal framework for it that exists in UK law.

I can see Microsoft winning their appeal. I can imagine the CMA changing their minds. They abandonned part of their arguments to focus on the cloud for a reason after all. But right now the CMA has spoken. The answer is NO. Do you understand that the fact that the NO will end the deal is not the CMA fault? It is ABK that asked for all four regulators to say yes for the merger to happen. And Microsoft accepted that. As for them to simply ignore the law... This is not about just Xbox, but all of Microsoft that would be punished in that case. Even if true, do you understand that for them to violate the law that way would have consequences beyond just this merger? The fact that it can be done does not means that it is a good idea.

 

[MasterCornholio]

No, they didn't. The CMA made changes to their "provisional" findings. That wasn't a change in the "same decision". There was no decision. There you go just making shit up again and again.

It's almost as if people forgot when the CMAs final decision was. They didnt approve the deal when they tossed Sonys arguments out the window. Some people assumed that they did when that happened which is wrong.

 

[Topher]

It's almost as if people forgot when the CMAs final decision was. They didnt approve the deal when they tossed Sonys arguments out the window. Some people assumed that they did when that happened which is wrong.

Spend too much time on twitter and you will get dumber. I truly believe that.