OHhhhhh ok, so losing constantly basically provides evidence that the FTC need more power. Ok that makes sense.
As I understand it, the main argument MS is making to the CAT is that CAM used a fundamentally incorrect definition of the cloud market and this mistake led them to reaching an incorrect conclusion.
I see, so if then given a proper understanding of the cloud market...CMA could just say "Yea, this doesn't change anything".
MS admitted the deal is supposedly 100% dead if they lose to the injunction. That's probably why the FTC is giving it a shot.
The FTC may have acted on injunction because they thought MS might try closing despite the CMA.
So, if so remember correctly, MS argument is that the CMA vastly overrated the size of the cloud market and failed to understand that people can still access games natively. Almost as if the cloud market locked you out of all gaming.
No way. Losing an injunction doesn't mean you lose the case. If the deal terminates, then even if they lose injunction the political appointees at FTC will try taking credit for the deal ending. Virtually guaranteed.
Yea I would say that is a good point made my Microsoft. Cloud gaming is...at least now, complimentary. Cloud and Console gaming are not mutually exclusive, sure.
Bill was effectively neutured after being forced to settle the United States vs Microsoft anti trust case.
Brad Smith was their lawyer on that case too, his work there got him the role of Microsoft President and chief envelope haver.
Psychologically.
Read again please. I’m literally just saying FTC will try taking some credit if deal terminated because of CMA, even if they don’t get injunction.
Maybe testing waters in US before deciding if they offer more to extend while appealing CMA? If they narrow down to just CMA they might be more willing to risk more money.
It's good for gamers. MS should never have been allowed to entertain the possibility of acquiring ABK, and killing the deal will ensure nobody else (MS, Amazon, Apple, Google, Sony, etc.) will also acquire giant publishers and continue to consolidate the industry until like 3 companies control all of gaming.
Do we know any details regarding the breakup fee? I.e., would an injunction in any shape or form reduce the breakup fee amount (in contractual writing or by legal precedent)?
Another one bites the dust. And another one, another one bites the dust. But seriously, why do so many xfans have alts, it’s sickening. Man up and take the ban like a man.
He went full loco with CW route.
Just spit balling here…
Looking at the FTC v Meta/Within merger - which was a PI before acquisition same as MS/ABK. The hearings concluded on 21 December but the judgement denying the PI was not provided until Jan 31. 6 weeks but over Christmas and New Year.
Following that the FTC were given a further Temporary Restraining order for 14 days while they considered an appeal. Ultimately the FTC chose not to appeal and Meta acquired Within.
The “Gamer’s” lawsuit started May 5 and has been dismissed by Judge Corley twice because the litigants cannot show personal immediate harm if MS/ABK close the acquisition.
Despite being dismissed twice that case remains under appeal right now. 6 weeks and it is still going.
FTC vs Illumina/Grail set another precedent. In that instance, the FTC brought an injunction suit (post acquisition in that case) however while the process was ongoing the EC brought an action for Illumina/Grail to be held separate pending a review (which has finally arrived at a divestment required for Grail - ie reverse the acquisition).
In this instance the FTC halted their PI proceedings part way through because the EC had taken action. Following that suspension, the judge approved the idea they could reapply for an injunction in future. Illumina didn’t like this outcome because it stretched out the decision by leaving another suit out there to be brought if the FTC chose to do so.
All this would suggest that the FTC (and indeed the Gamer’s suit which is still running) can grind the clock to July 18 from here.
And on that latter point, the Temporary Restraining Order currently in place says MS/ABK may not close the acquisition until 5 business days have elapsed after the PI ruling.
1. Microsoft and Activision shall not close or consummate their proposed transaction or a substantially similar transaction until after 11:59 p.m. Pacific Time on the fifth business day after the Court rules on the FTC’s request for a preliminary injunction under Federal Trade Commission Act § 13(b), 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), or a date set by the Court, whichever is later;
So July 12 becomes the drop dead date as far as the PI ruling is concerned - 18 July is a Tuesday and the MS/ABK deal expires at 11:59 that day.
MS asking for more days has pushed the hearing out to June 29 - that lost them 6 days compared to the June 23 originally requested by the FTC.
Place your bets…
As demonstrated in the schedule below, Defendants [this is Microsoft] believe that the hearing could be
21 scheduled for a minimum of five days beginning on June 22 and running through the week of June
22 26 (or the soonest dates thereafter, based on the Court’s busy schedule). To ensure the case
23 proceeds on a viable schedule, Defendants request that the Court set a case management conference
24 as soon as possible to further discuss the format and length of the hearing.
From games industry.biz. Either way if it didn't happen until now then I guess it was refused?
The legal system is a little weird. Sometimes you have landmark cases where it can influence future cases. I think it's more that they have to try even if a lot of them aren't successful.
Most likely. The whole thing will be a Netflix series.
This clearly equalled or surpassed the CMA review threshold though. Otherwise they wouldn't even be reviewing it.
