XesqueVara
Member
CMA and the FTC wants the thread to reach at 2000.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
ulantan
Member
And God willing we will make it.
GHG
Member
Bro, $70 doesn't buy you one share and hasn't since this saga started.
Save yourself the angst and enjoy Diablo 4.
Thirty7ven
Banned
Chiggs
Gold Member
So it's another loss then?
NickFire
Member
Is that the standard applicable to preliminary injunctions while FTC investigates?
If so, it would seem logical for that to be the standard while FTC investigates, and would suggest the judge applied more of a standard for enforcement of an FTC decision after a final FTC investigation.
If that was also an accurate presumption, then I like FTC's chances for a stay of the last judgment.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
They get paid by the page count
do what I did and rent it
also the entire Yakuza franchise and multiple Persona games are already on GP. Play them while you wait for D4.
ChiefDada
Gold Member
GHG
Member
Yeh if that's the route they go down they aren't going to be successful.
Seeing what they brought to the table during the case I don't think they have anyone competent enough in-house to put together an appeal robust enough to have a chance of being successful.
Kenshin775
Member
PaintTinJr
Member
Yeah, I think we are talking about the same Clayton act that ChiefDada provided info for over the last 20 or so pages of which one was quotes from a George town law article explaining the actual acts wording as a probability of a probability, which her wording subverted with the term "maybe" with the word "will" and reducing the standard to a straight probability - at odds with the act - raising the difficulty standard providing evidence for the FTC to make their case, or at least that's what I took from what I read - which might be completely wrong.
The part about Sony, would then mean the judge has already confirmed the second probability exists by stating the deal is bad for Sony.
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
These aren't remotely different statements.
"There's a chance I might" vs. "There's a chance I will" are the same damn thing. Doesn't matter how you modify the "chance" part of the statement, the meaning inferred is the same.
GHG
Member
P3 reload isn't even out yet, you can't purchase and play it. At this point you're just trolling.
My favourite hobby is also "saving money".
ChorizoPicozo
Member
GHG
Member
GHG
Member
PaintTinJr
Member
Clearly not a SW fan, then? the "I will" part is talking in an absolute.
MasterCornholio
Member
NickFire
Member
They might be extremely different depending on the context of where they appear.
I am purely speculating right now. But if we are talking about the standard for whether FTC should be allowed to have a merger paused (preliminary injunction), so that FTC can investigate / have a trial before making a final decision, then might and will could matter a ton in the legal world. Might would suggest a threshold standard for a preliminary injunction, where will would suggest the threshold for a permanent injunction.
Chiggs
Gold Member
Yeah, they're going to have to prove without a shadow of a doubt that they were unlawfully wronged in this case, and I just don't see how that's going to happen. People can bring up the Clayton Act stuff all they want, but that's the judge's modern interpretation of a very, very old law.
Good luck is all I can say.
Well, actually, that's not true. I also want to say: maybe Khan can better use her time helping the current administration, and Congress, to better understand why there's a need for an antitrust overhaul?
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
It just doesn't make sense.
"There's a 75% chance he might do something"
"There's a 75% chance he will do something"
Both of these statements are saying the same thing lol The "might" doesn't modify the 75% chance part down to 50% or something lol
In the context of the sentence "will" essentially MEANS might.
Replace 75% with "reasonable probability" and I think you'll see what I'm saying here.
Last edited:
GHG
Member
dibella360
Banned
PaintTinJr
Member
It was always nonsense when UK outlets like the BBC, Sky News and Channel 4 that are a thousand miles ahead of the CNBC to cover UK CMA news, didn't have anything. it is just PR projecting from team shill when there's nothing from UK news or the CMA by twitter.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Take that back or he will block you.
Last edited:
NickFire
Member
Oh yes it does. Have you ever heard the joke about prosecutors being able to indict a ham sandwich?
It stems, at least partly, from the two completely different standards to charge someone with a crime compared to convicting them for it. To charge someone you merely need probable cause (think like 10% probability they did it, although I am over generalizing here). But to convict them you have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
If the defense attorney argues to dismiss a criminal complaint because the prosecutor did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the grand jury or magistrate, and the judge actually allows it, the appeal's court will almost certainly overturn the dismissal. The reason is that the prosecutor does not need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt until after the full blown trial. Doesn't matter how much damage a criminal charge can do to an innocent person who is found not guilty. As long as there is a thresh hold showing the person MIGHT have committed the crime (essentially), the prosecutor gets their trial.
Following now?
GigaBowser
Banned
This deal cannot goes through we must protect jarpanese developers my friends
thebigmanjosh
Member
Not really...it's probability of a probability vs. probability of a certainty, and the law is written to test the former.
Legally, that's a big difference and beyond semantics.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Kenshin775
Member
Yeah I know that. If MS bought Sega then I would save money on future games. Metaphor, P3, Reload Infinite Wealth are coming in 6-12 months. thats $210 savings. But like I said it was a joke.
Sorry you seem to have an attitude with me and I get it Gamepass cheerleading for games can get annoying on this site. But I think you are the guy that does the good stock analysis. Just wanted to say I appreciate your posts. Good day.
Putonahappyface
Gold Member
Chiggs
Gold Member
Come on! You at least have to share the whole story.
The Judge Who Coined “Indict a Ham Sandwich” Was Himself Indicted
In the aftermath of a grand jury's decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, commentators have noted that such an outcome is quite...
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Proelite
Member
Last edited:
. This deal is happening
ChiefDada
Gold Member
No. For starters, it's not "There is a chance", it's "Reasonable Probability". Let's break it down:
1. To grant PI, FTC has to show "Reasonable Probability" that the proposed merger is in violation of clayton act, sec. 7.
2. Sec. 7 "prohibits the acquisition by a corporation of stock in another corporation where the effect of the acquisition may be to lessen competition."
2a. Subsequent cases established the term "reasonable probability" = "more likely than not" and the term "may be" = "likely". ("Substantial is entirely different can of worms but it seems like FTC and judge were on the same page with this, I think).
3. Put it all together = The FTC has to prove: "more likely than not" that the acquisition is "likely" to lessen competition substantially" (Probability of a Probability; Lower threshold for FTC)
4. The judge's decision stated the FTC failed to prove: "more likely than not" that the merger "will" lessen competition substantially" (Probability of an Absolute; Higher threshold for FTC).
You might not care or understand the significance in the nuance, but attorneys do.
GHG
Member
Look, the way I see it is that if you want to play something enough then you can budget appropriately for it (providing you're an adult, which I'm assuming you are). If a game isn't of thst much importance to you then you won't. D4 has been out for a while now, if it were of thst much importance to you then you would already be playing it (and that also goes for any other game that's not on the service).
Pretending that Microsoft buying out a publisher whose games are already on gamepass will be a big win to you doesn't make any sense at all, sorry.
Unknown Soldier
Member
If any Nintendo gamers gave a shit about CoD they would have bought a console which has it by now.So yeah it's going to be hilarious if one of the stipulations is MS has to put COD on Nintendo consoles for 10 years. Sony will be business as usual but Nintendo hasn't been getting cod … it would just pushes them further ahead.
Timberwolf25
Member
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked