Support NeoGAF

[thebigmanjosh]

Is it true that Lina is testifying in congress and blaming her staff for the appeal decision?

Tell me it's a lie, please.

I didn't catch that but she's not speaking on any in progress cases.

I'm actually surprised how amicable the majority of this session is. It seems like all involved agree antitrust laws need to be changed/improved to combat monopolistic practices by big tech/other sectors.

 

[Topher]

Is it true that Lina is testifying in congress and blaming her staff for the appeal decision?

Tell me it's a lie, please.

Not sure. Which script source are you reading?

 

[Gravemind]

Sorry I'm frustrated from a convo yesterday not anything you said.

Read my next post for a more thorough explanation of the 2 sentences.

The fact the judge just said "may" later in her statement only proves my point.

It all means the same thing. They all boil down to "it may" or "it might", doesn't matter that the word "will" was in a sentence because it was prefaced by "Reasonable probability that it."

GAF can laugh about "legal scholars" all day, I am not intimidated by discussions of talking head TV morons or twitter lawyers. We all know how often these people are wrong, or more importantly, are being intellectually dishonest.

You guys ever take debate class?

Ever had an assignment where you had to argue AGAINST your actual belief?

That's what being a lawyer is, it isn't about being right all the time based on what you believe, it's about arguing a side you are paid to argue for. Honestly it's a bit like forum fanboying.. people aren't arguing logically, they have a default position they start form and then go from there and try to warp reality around it.

No offense taken at all. I appreciate the insight. I'm more concerned with knowing the facts and understanding both sides of the argument rather than being simply right. Always nice to be able to have a civil discussion amidst the chaos.

Cheers

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

I'm watching this on and off between Exoprimal runs and Lina is getting pretty severely cooked it seems.

They have asked her a few times about why continue to pursue the MS/ABK appeal after how bad the FTC lost and is now 0 for 4 in trying to stop mergers and she really wont answer them

And yeah she has been roasted a few times and dodges most questions not scripted to her

 

[tmlDan]

around 17% of the us budget is military, health (including medicare and medicaid) is about 28%, and social security is 25%. Everything else is in the remaining percentage.

dats crazy

 

[DeepEnigma]

I'm watching this on and off between Exoprimal runs and Lina is getting pretty severely cooked it seems.

Wonder how many "progressives" and "vote blue no matter who" Xbox fans will be cheering on evil red Gaetz and company today. Anyone check Reeeee?

 

[Varteras]

They have asked her a few times about why continue to pursue the MS/ABK appeal after how bad the FTC lost and is now 0 for 4 in trying to stop mergers and she really wont answer them

And yeah she has been roasted a few times and dodges most questions not scripted to her

Because she's more of a political activist than anything that would qualify her for the position, from what I've been hearing.

 

[kvltus lvlzvs]

That is the exact point I've bene making.




OH COME ON lol

Just bad examples IMO.

Alright I have to actually do some work as a non-lawyer now.

Cool, it seems like you are mostly just interested in arguing this from a rhetorical standpoint and if proven wrong it is that "the law is totally written in a dumb way."

I'll bow out of this exchange as well, as I believe I have made my point.

 

[DeepEnigma]

They have asked her a few times about why continue to pursue the MS/ABK appeal after how bad the FTC lost and is now 0 for 4 in trying to stop mergers and she really wont answer them

And yeah she has been roasted a few times and dodges most questions not scripted to her

A typical congressional hearing. Lots of talk talk talk, dodge dodge dodge, and nothing gets done about it at the end of the day. They grill appointees and show how they lack the qualifications and are radicals, but vote to appoint them anyways.

Gotta waste them tax dollars.

 

[NickFire]

Because in America, judges know they have this leverage and more often than not, won't be challenged, or recuse themselves.

Judges Can’t Hear Cases When There’s a Conflict of Interest? Some Do.

Ethics rules require judges to recuse themselves from cases involving relatives or their own partisan or political interests. But it doesn't always work out that way.

www.governing.com

Judicial Ethics & Recusal

Robust judicial recusal standards are vital to achieving unbiased decisionmaking. The Brennan Center supports best practices regarding when and how judges should step aside from cases in the face of potential conflicts of interest.

www.brennancenter.org

The commentator is not wrong about the possible blowback. But sometimes you just have to deal with it. And in my humble opinion, if there is a chance the decision could give the judge's child either a bunch of side eyes or high fives depending on the outcome, at a trillion dollar employer, you deal with the blowback, Just my two cents.

 

[ToTTenTranz]

Is it true that Lina is testifying in congress and blaming her staff for the appeal decision?

No, it's not true she's "blaming her staff". That was the dishonest rewording that a republican representative did after some mental gymnastics.


She asked why the FTC was appealing the decision. She answered she can't comment on ongoing processes (which the rep. who asked knows perfectly well, but whatever). She also said she doesn't decide these things on her own and assured the decision to appeal came from the collaborative analysis of a team made up of many people whom she trusts.

Queue in twitter bots and a bunch of paid corporate shills who all of the sudden love the Republican Party yelling "omg she just threw her staff under the bus". The same people who put pronouns in their bios and swore last month that the GOP was a bunch of nazis, of course.

 

[Gravemind]

Kahn and the FTC getting blasted about the merger today

 

[GermanZepp]

So, i'm behind the thread, someone want to beer me the current situation? is the one in the title?

 

[DeepEnigma]

Queue in twitter bots and a bunch of paid corporate shills who all of the sudden love the Republican Party yelling "omg she just threw her staff under the bus". The same people who put pronouns in their bios and swore last month that the GOP was a bunch of nazis, of course.

 

[Thirty7ven]

In regards to judge's word usage from one sentence to another:



In terms of FTC/PI Burden of Proof, copied from prior posts:

The Appropriate Decision Standard for Section 7 Cases

The burden of proof to determine the “reasonable probability” that a merger violates Section 7 is not clear. Using the insightful puzzlement expressed by the c

deliverypdf.ssrn.com

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).
.

Exactly. The judge is ruling as if the FTC had to prove to her that they would win the case they put forward, which is to block, and even went as far as saying that the FTC had their wish because other regulators had demanded remedies. Which is funny because she completely set aside the fact that the CMA blocked the merger. So she's effectively saying that FTC already got what they wanted from other regulators, and then says the FTC doesn't have a chance to prove what other regulators have proven. Disregards ALL evidence against MS, from discovery and other rulings. Raises the standard of the law in the process and supports her reasonings with complete misunderstanding of the market, while working on MS's timeline and having an axe to grind with another government agency, ALL because she didn't want to be the one to set precedence.

A bad joke, makes a mockery of the court.

 

[DrFigs]

Kahn and the FTC getting blasted about the merger

Bro is the FTC really trying to use precedent to argue things in court??? wtf???

 

[lastmessiah]

This thread is amazing, I hope it just keeps going even after the merger is approved and finished and the hamster wheels have to spin even harder.

 

[NickFire]

This thread is amazing, I hope it just keeps going even after the merger is approved and finished and the hamster wheels have to spin even harder.

What is wrong with you?

Seriously, why take time from your life just to log into an account and post something that boils down to: "stop having fun"?

 

[IntentionalPun]

Cool, it seems like you are mostly just interested in arguing this from a rhetorical standpoint and if proven wrong it is that "the law is totally written in a dumb way."

I'll bow out of this exchange as well, as I believe I have made my point.

How in the world is it not written in a dumb way?

Who would modify a statement about "reasonable probability" by then adding "might" at the end of it, and do that on purpose, to LESSEN the effect of the "reasonable probability" aspect?

It's like saying "there's a 50% chance that there is a 75% chance of something happening."

Or "it might, might happen."

Understanding the meaning of a statement shouldn't be a math problem, which is why we avoid things like double negatives, particularly in formal writing, like writing laws.

To be clear my point was if the word "might" matters in the context of that sentence, THEN it is a terribly written law. If someone used the words "reasonable probability" with "might" in a sentence with me under normal circumstances, I would not treat it any differently then if they said "a reasonable probability it will" happen. Because they mean the same damn thing lol

 

[analog_future]

So, i'm behind the thread, someone want to beer me the current situation? is the one in the title?

Title is pretty much correct. At this point we're at a 95% chance that the deal completes. Most likely within a week as well.

 

[Gravemind]

Bro is the FTC really trying to use precedent to argue things in court??? wtf???

Seems like they tried using their own past FTC rulings as precedent which was probably already known from the court documents (not sure as I didn't read it and am not following as closely as most in this thread)

It was also interesting how he said they're even less likely to be given an appeal as the appeal court it going to look at legal court precedent which is heavily in favour of the judges ruling (which again, may already be common knowpedge already, not sure).

I'm definitely no expert on this, just found it relevant to the appeal topic.

 

[havoc00]

After this closes will Bobby be awarded Times person of the year award ?

 

[ChiefDada]

Kahn and the FTC getting blasted about the merger today

Not really.

1. The congressman is slamming her appeal on a false presumption that it will challenge findings of fact, when instead the appeal will almost certainly challenge an error of law. In other words, the appeal won't be based on the FTC's performance, but rather the judge's perceived misinterpretation and application of regulations, which is far more consequential. I mentioned this before the ruling even came out. It doesn't matter how bad the FTC performance was; they could have strolled in the courtroom in clown attire and conducted a literal circus. If the judge denied their request based on a misinterpretation of the applicable law, that is typically grounds for a mistrial in criminal court. Since this is all preliminary, there is no such thing at this stage but there is certainly grounds for reversal.

2. The twitter poster is conflating one's personal opinion with a "legal opinion" (i.e. the judge's explanation behind her decision, aka what we've all been talking about). It's not the FTC's use of tax dollars we need to be inspecting, it's the Department of Education's.

 

[kvltus lvlzvs]

Seems like they tried using their own past FTC rulings as precedent which was probably already known from the court documents (not sure as I didn't read it and am not following as closely as most in this thread)

It was also interesting how he said they're even less likely to be given an appeal as the appeal court it going to look at legal court precedent which is heavily in favour of the judges ruling (which again, may already be common knowpedge already, not sure).

I'm definitely no expert on this, just found it relevant to the appeal topic.

Yeah, the vertical vs horizontal merger precedent thing is really interesting. The precedent FOR vertical mergers has been extremely damaging and is why we have behemoths like Amazon and Microsoft in the first place. Companies are allowed to just consume everything new under the sun with their steady pipeline of decreasing-interest-rate loans and expand horizontally by consuming things that are supposedly "below them" in the supply chain. Amazon buying diapers.com comes to mind, lol.

 

[The Alien]

can someone make an argument that could make the FTC win?

On Gaf? Sure.
Just don't expect any of it to be legally applicable tho.

Heres my non-legal opinion:
At this point it's gonna be really hard to get a judge to overturn another judge's ruling - especially given the shit case they have and improper focus (its about consuners not Sony). The judge even called this out. "What may be bad for Sony may be good for consumers". "Winning" would require the FTC to almost throw out their current position and restart with new 'bad for consumers' approach.

 

[DeepEnigma]

It's not the FTC's use of tax dollars we need to be inspecting, it's the Department of Education's.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

They have asked her a few times about why continue to pursue the MS/ABK appeal after how bad the FTC lost and is now 0 for 4 in trying to stop mergers and she really wont answer them

And yeah she has been roasted a few times and dodges most questions not scripted to her

She's 0-4 in merger battles? Lol.

You'd think the FTC would use someone else.

 

[kvltus lvlzvs]

Not really.

1. The congressman is slamming her appeal on a false presumption that it will challenge findings of fact, when instead the appeal will almost certainly challenge an error of law. In other words, the appeal won't be based on the FTC's performance, but rather the judge's perceived misinterpretation and application of regulations, which is far more consequential. I mentioned this before the ruling even came out. It doesn't matter how bad the FTC performance was; they could have strolled in the courtroom in clown attire and conducted a literal circus. If the judge denied their request based on a misinterpretation of the applicable law, that is typically grounds for a mistrial in criminal court. Since this is all preliminary, there is no such thing at this stage but there is certainly grounds for reversal.

2. The twitter poster is conflating one's personal opinion with a "legal opinion" (i.e. the judge's explanation behind her decision, aka what we've all been talking about). It's not the FTC's use of tax dollars we need to be inspecting, it's the Department of Education's.

I really appreciate your posts, as I enjoy people communicating insight into the function and activities of law.

The only place where I stand in a different view is that I am not entirely sure that rule of law applies in the united states as it did, say, two decades ago. That disagreeance has absolutely nothing to do with the clarity of your posts or the reasoning behind them, which is rock solid.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

can someone make an argument that could make the FTC win?

Ya. Going by what you read on GAF.

The FTC should try to convince the courts MS is worth trillions, they are guaranteed to pull the plug on COD on PS, and in turn it'll make Sony go down the toilet.

That's all that needs to be argued. Case closed.

 

[NickFire]

She's 0-4 in merger battles? Lol.

You'd think the FTC would use someone else.

The FTC does not pick their boss dude.

 

[willothedog]

How in the world is it not written in a dumb way?

Who would modify a statement about "reasonable probability" by then adding "might" at the end of it, and do that on purpose, to LESSEN the effect of the "reasonable probability" aspect?

It's like saying "there's a 50% chance that there is a 75% chance of something happening."

Or "it might, might happen."

Understanding the meaning of a statement shouldn't be a math problem, which is why we avoid things like double negatives, particularly in formal writing, like writing laws.

To be clear my point was if the word "might" matters in the context of that sentence, THEN it is a terribly written law. If someone used the words "reasonable probability" with "might" in a sentence with me under normal circumstances, I would not treat it any differently then if they said "a reasonable probability it will" happen. Because they mean the same damn thing lol

Have you not heard of quantum probability where all are true and false at the same time

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

She's 0-4 in merger battles? Lol.

You'd think the FTC would use someone else.

Thats what they said, 0-4

Said a bit ago the FTC was asking for a 33% increase in budget but that was denied in fact their budget is getting cut by 25%

I just find the hearing interesting as it relates to this possible merger and her possibly not understanding the actual laws regarding mergers

 

[Gravemind]

Not really.

1. The congressman is slamming her appeal on a false presumption that it will challenge findings of fact, when instead the appeal will almost certainly challenge an error of law. In other words, the appeal won't be based on the FTC's performance, but rather the judge's perceived misinterpretation and application of regulations, which is far more consequential. I mentioned this before the ruling even came out. It doesn't matter how bad the FTC performance was; they could have strolled in the courtroom in clown attire and conducted a literal circus. If the judge denied their request based on a misinterpretation of the applicable law, that is typically grounds for a mistrial in criminal court. Since this is all preliminary, there is no such thing at this stage but there is certainly grounds for reversal.

2. The twitter poster is conflating one's personal opinion with a "legal opinion" (i.e. the judge's explanation behind her decision, aka what we've all been talking about). It's not the FTC's use of tax dollars we need to be inspecting, it's the Department of Education's.

Makes sense. That's what I was thinking when listening to the clip, but thought the congressman may have been privy to something we aren't yet, but after thinking it over that most likely isnt the case. I agree that it would be quite shocking if the appeal wasn't based on the judges possible misinterpretation. I'm interested to find out exactly what the grounds are for the appeal.

Also as for the tweet itself, I posted it for the video only. Wish you could just post the video and not have some random guys bullshit attached to it lol

 

[Dlacy13g]

On the CMA front, given the amount of political pressure that was being put on the CMA of late in the UK, I highly doubt MS would have agreed to pause on the CAT Tribuneral unless they felt there was a clear path to reaching an agreement with the CMA.

Swapping over to the FTC, its possible they feel they have a good shot at winning the appeal but in the back of my mind I wonder if that appeal was filed in no small way to help shield Lina Kahn from having to speak to it during the congressional hearing. Sure she will still take some heat on it (as she has) but it much easier to respond with "I can't comment on an active proceeding" to questions being fired at her on the matter. Would be a much messier day for her if she was having to actually speak to the matter. And thus ends my consipiracy thoughts for the day...

 

[PaintTinJr]

The Judge has until midnight tomorrow night to decide if he will allow the appeal or throw it out (which is likely) then MS is free to close over the CMA and take care of that problem after the fact

The CMA alone will not stop this deal imo

Well I think your inside person isn't getting real info from the top, if that is the idea to close over the CMA as a solution.

If that is what the Brads and Phils are saying to him then he just won't be in the inner circle that will have agreed to divest Activision at the last minute - if a superior solution isn't found.

Microsoft shareholders could hold Microsoft's board accountable for acting illegally - if they close over the CMA with their(shareholders') company and result in people actually going to jail. It has to be a bluff, or the CMA are lying about the deal being blocked.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Thats what they said, 0-4

Said a bit ago the FTC was asking for a 33% increase in budget but that was denied in fact their budget is getting cut by 25%

I just find the hearing interesting as it relates to this possible merger and her possibly not understanding the actual laws regarding mergers

Big corpos

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Thats what they said, 0-4

Said a bit ago the FTC was asking for a 33% increase in budget but that was denied in fact their budget is getting cut by 25%

I just find the hearing interesting as it relates to this possible merger and her possibly not understanding the actual laws regarding mergers

If that's the case, what they should be doing is focusing on a smaller pool of better qualified and better paid people. At least they could win some court battles.

If they are spread thin with shittier budgets, they'll just have worse talent. It's like sports. If you don't have the budget, it's probably better to have a few all stars and a weak supporting core than a giant roster of bad players who will never move the needle.

Never the less, as the FTC they should already have the benefit of people who should already know the laws (legacy knowledge, archives and precedents) better than other organizations.

I don't know who Lina Kahn aside from this court battle, but if this is the best person the FTC has (assuming so since she's getting giant big MS/Activision battle on her plate), then FTC is in big trouble.

 

[ChiefDada]

How in the world is it not written in a dumb way?

You are absolutely right, it's a poorly written regulation that can only lead to confusion. But it's what the FTC, Microsoft, and the District Court has to work with.

Who would modify a statement about "reasonable probability" by then adding "might" at the end of it, and do that on purpose, to LESSEN the effect of the "reasonable probability" aspect?

It's like saying "there's a 50% chance that there is a 75% chance of something happening."

So now FTC's reasoning for appeal becomes more clear.

Under Judge's interpretation: Reasonable probability (>50%) that it will (100%) results in overall probability of >50%; greater than 50%

Reasonable probabiliity (>50%) that it might/may be/ likely (>50%) results in overall probability of >25%; as low as (>25%).

 

[NickFire]

I just find the hearing interesting as it relates to this possible merger and her possibly not understanding the actual laws regarding mergers

If you are suggesting someone could possibly have been appointed to run a federal agency in the United States of America, who was not qualified for that job, then let me tell you something brother. There is no way I will agree with that assertion, again, until this damn transaction either closes or does not.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

If you are suggesting someone could possibly have been appointed to run a federal agency in the United States of America, who was not qualified for that job, then let me tell you something brother. There is no way I will agree with that assertion, again, until this damn transaction either closes or does not.

True because every person of power in our agencies are 100% qualified

Well I think your inside person isn't getting real info from the top, if that is the idea to close over the CMA as a solution.

If that is what the Brads and Phils are saying to him then he just won't be in the inner circle that will have agreed to divest Activision at the last minute - if a superior solution isn't found.

Microsoft shareholders could hold Microsoft's board accountable for acting illegally - if they close over the CMA with their(shareholders') company and result in people actually going to jail. It has to be a bluff, or the CMA are lying about the deal being blocked.

I have been saying everything I have said this week is all speculation on my part

 

[feynoob]

Phil must be a hypnosis grand master.
He made people love MS to the point that they will go after their government and their interest.

Man is truly a politician to the core.

 

[Loxus]

Microsoft has a huge amount of faith in GamePass.

 

[analog_future]

Microsoft has a huge amount of faith in GamePass.

Yeah but everyone here says Game Pass LOSES money.

Who to trust!?

 

[Kilau]

True because every person of power in our agencies are 100% qualified


I have been saying everything I have said this week is all speculation on my part

In your opinion, is an extension less likely than closing over the CMA?

 

[dotnotbot]

Yeah but everyone here says Game Pass LOSES money.

Who to trust!?

Microsoft certainly, they're so trustworthy

 

[ToTTenTranz]

She's 0-4 in merger battles? Lol.

You'd think the FTC would use someone else.

The FTC usually loses the court battles because they're dwarfed in money and resources vs. the megacorporations they go against.
For example, Microsoft is using dozens of $1500/hour veteran lawyers and handed to the FTC no less than 1 million documents. They did this deliberately to overwhelm the FTC's much smaller and under-resourced team and have them waste time looking at e-mails that have nothing to do with the subject.

The FTC losing the court battle against megacorporations is an expected result.


What people fail to mention is that despite this the FTC has been winning several wars on mergers outside the court. One good example was the Nvidia+ARM acquisition that failed due to the FTC, and never went to court.

Microsoft has a huge amount of faith in GamePass.

This also reads as "Microsoft decided to lose money on foreclosing Playstation on the prospect of making more revenue on the long term by having more people changing platforms".
Which kind of sounds like it's illegal.

 

[graywolf323]

Microsoft has a huge amount of faith in GamePass.

so they're willing to lose the cut they would have gotten from the expected 10+ million sales, once again proving Microsoft is more than willing to take a short-term loss towards what they believe is a long-term gain

This also reads as "Microsoft decided to lose money on foreclosing Playstation on the prospect of making more revenue on the long term by having more people changing platforms".
Which kind of sounds like it's illegal.

yep, where's all the people saying Microsoft would never do this because the shareholders wouldn't stand for it?n

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

In your opinion, is an extension less likely than closing over the CMA?

Just my 2 cents if the FTC appeal gets thrown out and the only thing hanging over them is the CMA the deal closes this weekend and something gets worked out

 

[nikolino840]

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

 

[ToTTenTranz]

so they're willing to lose the cut they would have gotten from the expected 10+ million sales, once again proving Microsoft is more than willing to take a short-term loss towards what they believe is a long-term gain

Which is illegal as per anti-trust laws.