Support NeoGAF

[feynoob]

That reads oddly familiar.

So that Brazilian tag was suspicious.

 

[Heisenberg007]

It could be possible that Microsoft is leaving this to the last minute to put pressure on ABK. Basically not allowing them time to negotiate new terms but to accept whatever is given to them.

That will not work. In fact, that strategy is only harmful to Microsoft, not ABK.

For example, if MS doesn't give ABK enough time to renegotiate, ABK can just say "oops, we didn't have enough time to reach a consensus. We'll just rather take the $3 billion check. Good luck with whoever you acquire next."

Remember ABK doesn't need to be acquired. It is MS who is hustling because it's their $3 billion on the line.

 

[EdGalTBR]

Edit: ok.

 

[EdGalTBR]

So that Brazilian tag was suspicious.

What do you mean? Why not talk openly?

 

[Sanepar]

My god, such toxicity here against who is in favor of the merger. I really hope Microsoft buy Actvision and unleash Call of Duty bundles with Xbox. It would be funny to watch the meltdown.

Be in favor is one thing. You are cheering microsoft like they are your buddy. I hope you have stocks if not you are just dumb.

 

[EdGalTBR]

Be in favor is one thing. You are cheering microsoft like they are your buddy. I hope you have stocks if not you are just dumb.

Microsoft IS my buddy.

 

[drganon]

Microsoft IS my buddy.

Microsoft isn't going to fuck you.

 

[Kilau]

Microsoft isn't going to fuck you.

They’ve been fucking all of us for decades.

 

[drganon]

They’ve been fucking all of us for decades.

Not in the way he wants...

 

[ulantan]

Microsoft isn't going to fuck you

Oh they have and will continue too like every other giant corporation.

 

[EdGalTBR]

Not in the way he wants...

Why all this hate?

 

[Celcius]

Without reading 100+ pages, how much longer is this going to go back and forth?

 

[RaZoR No1]

Without reading 100+ pages, how much longer is this going to go back and forth?

too long...
tooo looong...

 

[Roxkis_ii]

Live footage of Microsoft closing the deal:

 

[NickFire]

Without reading 100+ pages, how much longer is this going to go back and forth?

Nothing of substance has really gone back and forth for a couple hundred pages. Couple of chess pieces moved on the board, but no pieces taken since CMA decision came out.

 

[drganon]

Why all this hate?

 

[Kenshin775]

Without reading 100+ pages, how much longer is this going to go back and forth?

FTC is expected to lose the preliminary injunction by the end of this month leaving the UK as the sole regulator opposing the deal. If that happens then MS comity argument becomes a lot stronger in the CAT appeal which is a very good thing for them.

But MS is racing to get the deal closed before July 17th as they do not want to renegotiate. ABK could back out or ask for a higher premium. I personally think they will extend the deal for a few more months to see how CAT rules if the FTC loses this month.

 

[Dick Jones]

Nothing of substance has really gone back and forth for a couple hundred pages. Couple of chess pieces moved on the board, but no pieces taken since CMA decision came out.

Didn't we take the King off the board?

RIP SoloKingRobert you were too shilly for this world

 

[DeepEnigma]

Live footage of Microsoft closing the deal:

This gif frustrates me.

 

[Kilau]

Nothing of substance has really gone back and forth for a couple hundred pages. Couple of chess pieces moved on the board, but no pieces taken since CMA decision came out.

I’d say MS is moving in on checkmate with the FTC but with the CMA, MS is more like.

And NZ is still out there.

 

[Dick Jones]

I’d say MS is moving in on checkmate with the FTC but with the CMA, MS is more like.

And NZ is still out there.

NZ are open to delaying it again until MS/ABK, the CMA and FTC sort it out first. Then NZ makes a final unbiased decision.

 

[NickFire]

I’d say MS is moving in on checkmate with the FTC but with the CMA, MS is more like.

And NZ is still out there.

I wouldn't say either side has a leg up in the injunction case from what I've seen so far. Seems standard practice, although I suspect the inclusion of FTC and a trillion dollar company provided for a long evidentiary hearing much quicker than the average joe could hope for. Still wondering if an actual decision on the injunction will be made before the closing deadline.

 

[TheKremlinBossMan]

If the FTC wins it is pretty much game over for the deal as it looks like NZ is waiting to side with the winning team. If the FTC loses so long ABK multi platform games. It was nice while it lasted.

 

[MasterCornholio]

If the FTC wins it is pretty much game over for the deal as it looks like NZ is waiting to side with the winning team. If the FTC loses so long ABK multi platform games. It was nice while it lasted.

There's still the CMA.

 

[feynoob]

What do you mean? Why not talk openly?

Check bans.

 

[TheKremlinBossMan]

There's still the CMA.

After that threat, I doubt the CMA budges.

 

[Varteras]

FTC is expected to lose the preliminary injunction by the end of this month leaving the UK as the sole regulator opposing the deal. If that happens then MS comity argument becomes a lot stronger in the CAT appeal which is a very good thing for them.

But MS is racing to get the deal closed before July 17th as they do not want to renegotiate. ABK could back out or ask for a higher premium. I personally think they will extend the deal for a few more months to see how CAT rules if the FTC loses this month.

The CMA can easily argue that both the EC and FTC agree with them. Both have the same concerns as the CMA. Both felt something needed to be done about it. The EC decided that behavioral remedies were enough. The FTC wanted to outright block the deal. Something the CMA actually didn't do at first and was willing to have different levels of divestment as a remedy. Which Microsoft refused. The FTC losing their case doesn't change the fact that they agree with the CMA and were even more aggressive than they were. It means a US judge didn't agree with them on their remedy to the situation. The difficulty for the FTC to do its job in the US compared to the CMA would be highlighted. They would still be able to show that two important regulatory bodies agreed with them on the concerns and one of them agreed with the remedy.

 

[PaintTinJr]

The CMA can easily argue that both the EC and FTC agree with them. Both have the same concerns as the CMA. Both felt something needed to be done about it. The EC decided that behavioral remedies were enough. The FTC wanted to outright block the deal. Something the CMA actually didn't do at first and was willing to have different levels of divestment as a remedy. Which Microsoft refused. The FTC losing their case doesn't change the fact that they agree with the CMA and were even more aggressive than they were. It means a US judge didn't agree with them on their remedy to the situation. The difficulty for the FTC to do its job in the US compared to the CMA would be highlighted. They would still be able to show that two important regulatory bodies agreed with them on the concerns and one of them agreed with the remedy.

I sort of wonder if the FTC PI was actually to bolster the CMA appeal defence, given the timing was close to the 2nd CAT CMC.

The decisions in the 2nd CAT CMC would have informed the FTC how much time they had to get it on record that they were filing for an injunction, and what the time line was for them to keep their federal opposition in flight so the CMA could reference as a matter of fact, that the FTC were blocking the deal,

The CMA projecting that governments of markets that matter to XGS were against the deal to potentially influence the CAT judge/panel view from the start of the case, might be a good tactic, but I suspect the FTC's reason for filing - closing without approval - would certainly concern the CAT judge and probably lean him towards a sceptical stance when dealing with Microsoft's side of the argument., because it would demonstrate contempt for legal authorities.. including that of the CAT.

 

[Kenshin775]

The CMA can easily argue that both the EC and FTC agree with them. Both have the same concerns as the CMA. Both felt something needed to be done about it. The EC decided that behavioral remedies were enough. The FTC wanted to outright block the deal. Something the CMA actually didn't do at first and was willing to have different levels of divestment as a remedy. Which Microsoft refused. The FTC losing their case doesn't change the fact that they agree with the CMA and were even more aggressive than they were. It means a US judge didn't agree with them on their remedy to the situation. The difficulty for the FTC to do its job in the US compared to the CMA would be highlighted. They would still be able to show that two important regulatory bodies agreed with them on the concerns and one of them agreed with the remedy.

Sure they can argue that. But many countries have come out in support of the deal and consider it pro competitive and several of them still consider cloud a market segment or have no cloud concerns at all. UK blocking it worldwide is going against all those other countries that do believe the deal would benefit competition in their countries. CAT Absolutely will consider that. MS has a much stronger case IMO that there is nobody else blocking it so a more appropriate solution is an outright approval or at the very least approval in every jurisdiction except the UK.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Sure they can argue that. But many countries have come out in support of the deal and consider it pro competitive and several of them still consider cloud a market segment or have no cloud concerns at all. UK blocking it worldwide is going against all those other countries that do believe the deal would benefit competition in their countries. CAT Absolutely will consider that. MS has a much stronger case IMO that there is nobody else blocking it so a more appropriate solution is an outright approval or at the very least approval in every jurisdiction except the UK.

That is ongoing babysitting of Microsoft - which the CMA sad they won't do -, and they don't do that, because big companies would just bury them in babysitting work while outright ignoring the rules, so the remedies were ineffective.

 

[Kenshin775]

That is ongoing babysitting of Microsoft - which the CMA sad they won't do -, and they don't do that, because big companies would just bury them in babysitting work while outright ignoring the rules, so the remedies were ineffective.

Well yeah if it was up to the CMA then ofcourse. But from what I understand is CAT is the one that is going to make the decision on comity and the CMA has no influence over CAT.

 

[Ronin_7]

I actually think its already too late for an extension - assuming they need another round of shareholder voting to get that anyway.

This is an interesting point, if this needs a vote then it seems too late yes.

 

[Topher]

Sure they can argue that. But many countries have come out in support of the deal and consider it pro competitive and several of them still consider cloud a market segment or have no cloud concerns at all. UK blocking it worldwide is going against all those other countries that do believe the deal would benefit competition in their countries. CAT Absolutely will consider that. MS has a much stronger case IMO that there is nobody else blocking it so a more appropriate solution is an outright approval or at the very least approval in every jurisdiction except the UK.

3 of the 4 primary regulators have had issues with this deal. CAT will consider that as well. And they should also consider the fact that only one regulator highlighted in the merger agreement has approved the deal without remedies. In any case, the CMA has instructions to take into consideration the actions of other regulators, but that does not dictate their opinion. How much any of this weighs on the appeal is anyone's guess.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Well yeah if it was up to the CMA then ofcourse. But from what I understand is CAT is the one that is going to make the decision on comity and the CMA has no influence over CAT.

The CMA are highly trusted by the CAT to do the job of make decisions on the evidence, to the extent that the CAT won't be planning on becoming experts in the subject matter of anything in front of them, and are merely there to test that the CMA processes have been followed, even conflict of expert opinion is always a CMA win.

The CAT would just refer the question of comity to the CMA specifically in context, and ask if it alters their view on the SLC, which it wouldn't.

The UK CMA power to block deals across all markets isn't changing for CoD. Microsoft will have to show an error or procedural issue, just to get another CMA assessment of the case, and the chances it overturns the original decision are tiny.

 

[Varteras]

Sure they can argue that. But many countries have come out in support of the deal and consider it pro competitive and several of them still consider cloud a market segment or have no cloud concerns at all. UK blocking it worldwide is going against all those other countries that do believe the deal would benefit competition in their countries. CAT Absolutely will consider that. MS has a much stronger case IMO that there is nobody else blocking it so a more appropriate solution is an outright approval or at the very least approval in every jurisdiction except the UK.

From ChatGPT:

Q:
If two major regulatory bodies agreed with antitrust concerns with the CMA, one of them believing that behavioral remedies are sufficient, the other agreeing with the CMA that a block is necessary, but a judge overruled them on it, wouldn't the argument of comity be relatively weak compared to other potential arguments?

A:
In the scenario you described, where two major regulatory bodies agree with antitrust concerns raised by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) but differ on the appropriate remedy (behavioral remedies versus a block), the argument of comity may indeed be relatively weak compared to other potential arguments.

Comity generally involves recognizing and respecting the decisions and judgments of other regulatory bodies or jurisdictions. However, if the disagreement among the regulatory bodies revolves around the appropriate remedy rather than the core antitrust concerns, it may be less persuasive as an argument against the CMA's decision.

When a judge is tasked with reviewing the case, their primary responsibility is to assess the evidence, legal arguments, and applicable laws to arrive at an independent judgment. While the opinions of other regulatory bodies can carry some weight, a judge's decision is typically based on the specific facts and legal considerations presented in the case.

In such a situation, it would be more effective to focus on other potential arguments, such as challenging the factual basis of the antitrust concerns, demonstrating inconsistencies in the decision-making process, highlighting legal errors, or presenting alternative remedies that are more appropriate in light of the circumstances.

The CAT concerns itself with HOW the CMA reached its decision. Not WHAT they decided. The CMA could easily show that both the EC and FTC agreed with their concerns. So, based on comity alone, the CMA can be shown as inline with two major regulators. If comity is how Microsoft tries to argue this, instead of actually showing legal errors or irrational behavior, they're fucked in the appeal.

 

[DeepEnigma]

From ChatGPT:



The CAT concerns itself with HOW the CMA reached its decision. Not WHAT they decided. The CMA could easily show that both the EC and FTC agreed with their concerns. So, based on comity alone, the CMA can be shown as inline with two major regulators. If comity is how Microsoft tries to argue this, instead of actually showing legal errors or irrational behavior, they're fucked in the appeal.

Our AI overlords have spoken.

 

[Jigsaah]

So damn, just like we find out in little over a week? It's even before the July deadline. To put it i layman's terms, sounds like the FTC just fucked themselves.

 

[Varteras]

So damn, just like we find out in little over a week? It's even before the July deadline. To put it i layman's terms, sounds like the FTC just fucked themselves.

Many expected them to lose a later court case. Largely because of the immense difficulty the FTC has in convincing a judge to reverse an acquisition after it already happened, and the belief, then, that no one had a strong argument against it because everyone was focused on console concerns. Instead, cloud concerns have become the focus. The FTC is actually giving itself the best chance it has. They're doing it before the acquisition actually happens, with a temporary block until the case happens, and now armed with the thought process of the CMA who reached a similar conclusion. Which is something they didn't have when they sued to block many months ago.

 

[Jigsaah]

Many expected them to lose a later court case. Largely because of the immense difficulty the FTC has in convincing a judge to reverse an acquisition after it already happened, and the belief, then, that no one had a strong argument against it because everyone was focused on console concerns. Instead, cloud concerns have become the focus. The FTC is actually giving itself the best chance it has. They're doing it before the acquisition actually happens, with a temporary block until the case happens, and now armed with the thought process of the CMA who reached a similar conclusion. Which is something they didn't have when they sued to block many months ago.

How strong of a conclusion is the CMA though? From everything I've been seeing, people are saying their math was wrong and that cloud gaming is probably the least concerning market, yet they hang their hat on it.

I'm largely ignorant in this, mainly because I don't care enough to learn about all of the nuances, but since it going to conclude soon, I figured I'd just look into where we are at now.

From what I understand, the FTC filed the injunction in response to Microsoft threatening to just close the deal, which expedited the case, where originally people on this very thread were saying there's little (some said no chance) the deal could be closed prior to the July deadline. Now it seems all but inevitable.

Courts basically ruled in favor of Microsoft's requests today (or maybe yesterday, rather), because the FTC was trying to expedite and delay at the same time, keeping the July deadline in mind. That was shutdown.

Am I understanding this correctly?

If so, then it's not so much that the FTC fucked themselves as much as Microsoft just outplayed them.

 

[Sneakysnake]

CMA Investigations

The Competition and Markets authority (CMA) was created in 2013 with the mission to strengthening business competition and preventing and reducing anti-competitive activities.

www.hickmanandrose.co.uk

"Combining the responsibilities of the former Competition Commission and the Office for Fair Trading, the CMA investigates and prosecutes cases concerning consumer protection, commercial cartels and other anti-competitive behaviour such as market manipulation and price fixing.

Although the majority of their powers are derived from civil law, the CMA has the power to bring criminal proceedings.

Hickman & Rose have significant experience representing companies and individuals in the civil and criminal context who are subject to CMA investigations and enforcement."

Microsoft trying to breach the CMA orders could result in criminal proceedings, which in the UK can have virtually limitless negative impact on a business.

I firmly believe if Microsoft attempt to close the deal without CMA clearance it will be the last action of Microsoft as we've known them for the last +30years because UK actions will trigger universally backed US government intervention, most likely, and them being declawed like AT&T/Cable and Wireless were.

Wouldn't it only be a "breach of orders" if MS went ahead and sold Activision products in Britain? The CMA has no right, and in fact has made no attempt to regulate commerce beyond the borders of the UK. MS would ALWAYS have the right and the option to simply carve out the UK and not provide them any services, perhaps even including any and all MS services. Then there is nothing this tiny island nation's CMA could do about it. However I believe they can keep doing regular MS stuff over there and not sell any Activision/Blizzard stuff and not be in any sort of violation of orders. If the CMA says no to that then MS just leaves the UK altogether and we watch the UK government incinerate the CMA for making this horrible, I'll informed, prideful decision

 

[Jigsaah]

Wouldn't it only be a "breach of orders" if MS went ahead and sold Activision products in Britain? The CMA has no right, and in fact has made no attempt to regulate commerce beyond the borders of the UK. MS would ALWAYS have the right and the option to simply carve out the UK and not provide them any services, perhaps even including any and all MS services. Then there is nothing this tiny island nation's CMA could do about it. However I believe they can keep doing regular MS stuff over there and not sell any Activision/Blizzard stuff and not be in any sort of violation of orders. If the CMA says no to that then MS just leaves the UK altogether and we watch the UK government incinerate the CMA for making this horrible, I'll informed, prideful decision

Maybe ill informed...why do you say prideful though?

Seriously asking, I just know they said no because of da cloud.

 

[Topher]

How strong of a conclusion is the CMA though? From everything I've been seeing, people are saying their math was wrong and that cloud gaming is probably the least concerning market, yet they hang their hat on it.

It wasn't a matter of any "math" being wrong. Some are saying the CMA may an incorrect assumption about the number of Game Pass Ultimate users who use xCloud. The problem with that is the CMA is looking at the future cloud market, not as it is today. The CMA acknowledged the different outlook at present but said that it isn't relevant to their decision. If the CAT sends it back to CMA due to that then CMA can simply make a correction and return the exact same ruling.

I'm largely ignorant in this, mainly because I don't care enough to learn about all of the nuances, but since it going to conclude soon, I figured I'd just look into where we are at now.

From what I understand, the FTC filed the injunction in response to Microsoft threatening to just close the deal, which expedited the case, where originally people on this very thread were saying there's little (some said no chance) the deal could be closed prior to the July deadline. Now it seems all but inevitable.

Courts basically ruled in favor of Microsoft's requests today (or maybe yesterday, rather), because the FTC was trying to expedite and delay at the same time, keeping the July deadline in mind. That was shutdown.

Am I understanding this correctly?

If so, then it's not so much that the FTC fucked themselves as much as Microsoft just outplayed them.

The deal still cannot close prior to the July deadline due to the CMA's prohibition order. The FTC is going to lose their case against Microsoft just as they lose most of their cases. Lina Khan is on record as saying winning cases isn't their primary goal, but pushing the envelope with antirust case law in the US.

 

[Varteras]

How strong of a conclusion is the CMA though? From everything I've been seeing, people are saying their math was wrong and that cloud gaming is probably the least concerning market, yet they hang their hat on it.

If you're only seeing people saying that, then I'd guess you're only looking at people who have vested interests in the deal going through. The CMA spent months going over the data. Data that was provided to them by multiple sources, including Microsoft. People don't KNOW that their math is wrong. Many are HOPING that their math was wrong this time because, when it came to console concerns, they had inaccurate data and new data was presented to them. In both instances it was data provided to them by multiple sources. However, unlike the console concerns, no additional data was presented to them that would convince them that the deal wasn't a danger to an emerging market.

From what I understand, the FTC filed the injunction in response to Microsoft threatening to just close the deal, which expedited the case, where originally people on this very thread were saying there's little (some said no chance) the deal could be closed prior to the July deadline. Now it seems all but inevitable.

It's not inevitable. It's not inevitable that MS and ABK will renegotiate. It's not inevitable that MS will close the deal in violation of both their contract and UK law. The reason people have been saying that there is little to no chance of the deal closing before July 18th is because, outside of drastic measures that will see MS hauled into court for potentially years and possibly see fines in the tens of billions while battling with a soon to be empowered CMA, there was no reason to believe it would. However, MS has signaled a willingness to more or less tell everyone to fuck off if they don't get their way. The FTC's play is to get ahead of that before it potentially happens. Because in US courts it is historically very difficult to reverse an acquisition. Your best chance is to stop it before it happens. The FTC was content to allow the CMA to effectively end the deal. This is them doing their part to try and limit MS's moves if they decide to get ugly about this.

Courts basically ruled in favor of Microsoft's requests today (or maybe yesterday, rather), because the FTC was trying to expedite and delay at the same time, keeping the July deadline in mind. That was shutdown.

Am I understanding this correctly?

If so, then it's not so much that the FTC fucked themselves as much as Microsoft just outplayed them.

The FTC wanted it done quickly because it gave them a better chance to beat Microsoft. Because it would limit their available testimonies. The FTC already had everything lined up and ready to go. The plan there was to blitz them with their own evidence and testimonies while providing MS a reduced opportunity to counter. The judge was right to extend the hearings and allow the defendant a little more time to have things lined up. The FTC likely wasn't banking on that to win. Just an attempt to make things easier. They didn't get their way on that. But they did get the temporary block until the case is heard. It wasn't MS outplaying the FTC. Simply that the FTC won't have a significant advantage in available testimonies. Things will be more fair now.

 

[Jigsaah]

It wasn't a matter of any "math" being wrong. Some are saying the CMA may an incorrect assumption about the number of Game Pass Ultimate users who use xCloud. The problem with that is the CMA is looking at the future cloud market, not as it is today. The CMA acknowledged the different outlook at present but said that it isn't relevant to their decision. If the CAT sends it back to CMA due to that then CMA can simply make a correction and return the exact same ruling.



The deal still cannot close prior to the July deadline due to the CMA's prohibition order. The FTC is going to lose their case against Microsoft just as they lose most of their cases. Lina Khan is on record as saying winning cases isn't their primary goal, but pushing the envelope with antirust case law in the US.

So the FTC isn't necessarily trying to win the case, but to make it as difficult as possible to what, potentially deter this in the future? To set precedent? What's the point of that if the precedent is they keep losing?

Look I'm all for making sure companies don't get too big, but there are far better reasons (and I would expect, ways) to do this, no?

So if it cannot close before the deadline, where does that leave the deal? Let say FTC loses, CMA block still stands. What are Microsoft's and ABK's options at that point?

This doesn't make sense to me. I'll tell you why. Microsoft threatened to CLOSE THE DEAL, despite the CMA's block which is still in place. This then prompted the FTC to go to court. You say it's so they have the best chance to beat Microsoft in court. Cool, I get that. But if the deal never had a chance of closing before the July deadline, then how thee fuck does the original threat of closing the deal hold any water?

Help me out here.

 

[Banjo64]

Wouldn't it only be a "breach of orders" if MS went ahead and sold Activision products in Britain? The CMA has no right, and in fact has made no attempt to regulate commerce beyond the borders of the UK. MS would ALWAYS have the right and the option to simply carve out the UK and not provide them any services, perhaps even including any and all MS services. Then there is nothing this tiny island nation's CMA could do about it. However I believe they can keep doing regular MS stuff over there and not sell any Activision/Blizzard stuff and not be in any sort of violation of orders. If the CMA says no to that then MS just leaves the UK altogether and we watch the UK government incinerate the CMA for making this horrible, I'll informed, prideful decision

 

[GHG]

It's 2018 day, let them have their fun in the sun.

 

[Ogbert]

So the FTC isn't necessarily trying to win the case, but to make it as difficult as possible to what, potentially deter this in the future? To set precedent? What's the point of that if the precedent is they keep losing?

Look I'm all for making sure companies don't get too big, but there are far better reasons (and I would expect, ways) to do this, no?

So if it cannot close before the deadline, where does that leave the deal? Let say FTC loses, CMA block still stands. What are Microsoft's and ABK's options at that point?

This doesn't make sense to me. I'll tell you why. Microsoft threatened to CLOSE THE DEAL, despite the CMA's block which is still in place. This then prompted the FTC to go to court. You say it's so they have the best chance to beat Microsoft in court. Cool, I get that. But if the deal never had a chance of closing before the July deadline, then how thee fuck does the original threat of closing the deal hold any water?

Help me out here.

I’m more than happy to be corrected, and am only passing on what I have learned reading up on the case, but I think these cases are always very hard for the FTC to win.

They have a higher threshold to meet, as they need to demonstrate harm rather than simply fear it (as in the UK). That’s why the FTC has focussed on traditional
competition considerations, as opposed to nascent cloud concerns.

The preliminary injunction might be their best way of effectively blocking the deal, because it puts MS and ABK in an untenable contractual situation. That said, if MS and ABK both remain fully committed to the deal, they can obviously extend (although the suggestion is this might be difficult).

In terms of regulators, I think the CMA remains the biggest (and perhaps solitary) hurdle.

I don’t have a fucking clue though, to be honest. I’m just here for the memes.

 

[Varteras]

So the FTC isn't necessarily trying to win the case, but to make it as difficult as possible to what, potentially deter this in the future? To set precedent? What's the point of that if the precedent is they keep losing?

Look I'm all for making sure companies don't get too big, but there are far better reasons (and I would expect, ways) to do this, no?

So if it cannot close before the deadline, where does that leave the deal? Let say FTC loses, CMA block still stands. What are Microsoft's and ABK's options at that point?

This doesn't make sense to me. I'll tell you why. Microsoft threatened to CLOSE THE DEAL, despite the CMA's block which is still in place. This then prompted the FTC to go to court. You say it's so they have the best chance to beat Microsoft in court. Cool, I get that. But if the deal never had a chance of closing before the July deadline, then how thee fuck does the original threat of closing the deal hold any water?

Help me out here.

First, there is a push for reforms in the US government to grant more power to the FTC. That's been Khan's primary goal. To show convincing evidence that the FTC is too weak to do its job and needs more autonomy. She'll take wins if she can get them, but she stills wins for losing.

MS signaling to close the deal before the deadline regardless is what prompted this. The FTC will try to have a court ordered block. Because, as I said, it is easier to get a block in advance than try to convince a US judge to undo an acquisition. They wouldn't be relying purely on the UK to undo it.

Without a renegotiation with ABK to extend the deadline, and since the CAT hearings don't start until a week after the deadline, with a decision not promised swiftly, the only option MS has to close the deal before then, as I said, is to violate the terms of the contract and, more importantly, UK law.

What people have noted is that a renegotiation, if it were going to happen, would have likely already happened. Probably a month ago. MS acting like this signals that those negotiations didn't go well. That a new deal isn't happening. Because if it was going well and they got an extension, Microsoft could spend a bunch of time in appeals to push this through. Maybe years.

 

[Jigsaah]

If you're only seeing people saying that, then I'd guess you're only looking at people who have vested interests in the deal going through. The CMA spent months going over the data. Data that was provided to them by multiple sources, including Microsoft. People don't KNOW that their math is wrong. Many are HOPING that their math was wrong this time because, when it came to console concerns, they had inaccurate data and new data was presented to them. In both instances it was data provided to them by multiple sources. However, unlike the console concerns, no additional data was presented to them that would convince them that the deal wasn't a danger to an emerging market.

Ohhh ok, there's a lot here. But I think it's becoming clearer.

So I've watched youtubers, financial news (stock market news) and GAF. That's pretty much the extent of it. I don't know shit about law. So I'll put that disclaimer out there. That's why I ask questions.

Ok so it sounds like the CMA may or may not have inaccurate data about the Cloud numbers I assume.

It's not inevitable. It's not inevitable that MS and ABK will renegotiate. It's not inevitable that MS will close the deal in violation of both their contract and UK law. The reason people have been saying that there is little to no chance of the deal closing before July 18th is because, outside of drastic measures that will see MS hauled into court for potentially years and possibly see fines in the tens of billions while battling with a soon to be empowered CMA, there was no reason to believe it would. However, MS has signaled a willingness to more or less tell everyone to fuck off if they don't get their way. The FTC's play is to get ahead of that before it potentially happens. Because in US courts it is historically very difficult to reverse an acquisition. Your best chance is to stop it before it happens. The FTC was content to allow the CMA to effectively end the deal. This is them doing their part to try and limit MS's moves if they decide to get ugly about this.

So where folks (youtubers) are saying this case decides it, should they be saying, if the FTC wins it's over, but if they lose, it's not over?

The FTC wanted it done quickly because it gave them a better chance to beat Microsoft. Because it would limit their available testimonies. The FTC already had everything lined up and ready to go. The plan there was to blitz them with their own evidence and testimonies while providing MS a reduced opportunity to counter. The judge was right to extend the hearings and allow the defendant a little more time to have things lined up. The FTC likely wasn't banking on that to win. Just an attempt to make things easier. They didn't get their way on that. But they did get the temporary block until the case is heard. It wasn't MS outplaying the FTC. Simply that the FTC won't have a significant advantage in available testimonies. Things will be more fair now.

Seems like the temporary block is a small victory. I think they said they got like 5 days to come up with their aarguments or something, and then the trial begins on June 22nd? Is this trial likely to last a week? Months? Years?

 

[Topher]

So the FTC isn't necessarily trying to win the case, but to make it as difficult as possible to what, potentially deter this in the future? To set precedent? What's the point of that if the precedent is they keep losing?

Look I'm all for making sure companies don't get too big, but there are far better reasons (and I would expect, ways) to do this, no?

I guess. I don't know why the FTC thinks they are accomplishing anything here, frankly.

So if it cannot close before the deadline, where does that leave the deal? Let say FTC loses, CMA block still stands. What are Microsoft's and ABK's options at that point?

This doesn't make sense to me. I'll tell you why. Microsoft threatened to CLOSE THE DEAL, despite the CMA's block which is still in place. This then prompted the FTC to go to court. You say it's so they have the best chance to beat Microsoft in court. Cool, I get that. But if the deal never had a chance of closing before the July deadline, then how thee fuck does the original threat of closing the deal hold any water?

Help me out here.

Microsoft did not threaten to close the deal. That was a rumor that was reported through MLex which said that Microsoft was looking into ways of doing it. Nothing more.

Microsoft needs to win a massive victory against the CMA with the CAT. That's where this thing stands, imo.