Chukhopops
Member
The timing makes it very likely to be about some agreement about the UK market because otherwise why else?
The only question is how much MS had to give away to get it done, but it seems it's done one way or another.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
The only question is how much MS had to give away to get it done, but it seems it's done one way or another.
Bernoulli
M2 slut
DirectX14
mayham2199
Member
This is to go over the CMA\MS request to pause the trial.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Japan's largest bank is also the largest shareholder and vice / versa (plus several other banks and even Sony's own online bank). If push came to shove, they can leverage lend. But I don't want to see that happening any more than I don't want this deal to happen either.
NickFire
Member
I can think of an easy second possibility for the Monday CAT hearing. CAT may want to put MS on notice that if it allows the stipulation it will not be fast-tracking the trial if talks break down.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Because of the law. Section 41(3).
Microsoft and CMA may have agreed on a verbal deal before all this, but just this development does not guarantee that. This is normal procedure in the sense that there is a law, and everything so far is happening in accordance with that section.
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Yeah you have a point but interest rates being where they are today is REALLY limiting.
Nobody in their right mind wants to take on loans right now, even if it's a leveraged buyout style loan.
Hence why companies like Sony are selling things to raise cash for M&A.
Punished Miku
Gaslighter Pro: 16.7 Fireflops
I think we already determined that the concept of the nation-state will collapse if the deal goes through, so we probably wont have functioning police at that point. Maybe rival warlords will go after them.And what's gonna happen? Police gonna arrest Microsoft?
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Mad Max: Philury Road.
Sanepar
Member
The war bid for EA, T2 and Ubi will be out of park for Sony. These 3 will decide the future of this market.
If i could bet, i would say at least 2 of them will be with MS on the next 5-10 years.
James Sawyer Ford
Banned
No it's not
Chukhopops
Member
Not an expert in UK law so I don't know. But should MS decide to close without some form of pre-agreement, it doesn't really matter whether the trial is fast tracked or not?
You joke but it was mentioned seriously a few pages ago lol. That and being forced to use Linux in their servers worldwide.And what's gonna happen? Police gonna arrest Microsoft?
Sleepwalker
Member
Ubisofts marketcap is only like 6 billion while EA is at 37 billion ish and T2 at 25 billion.
Ubi is not like the other 2 lmao. EA also just spun off into 2 companies one for regular gaming and one for sports so gonna be interesting what happens there.
Dick Jones
Banned
Just appeared. It got fairly nasty overall. I'd have high tailed it too. Pity to see that.
Some fuckers here asking him to ask Ybarra about the merger, but the real question was did Bobby Kotick sexually harassed Ybarra. Disappointed in both your words and deeds boys.
splattered
Member
I think that would be foolish, no way MS can manage all these studios unless they truly take a hands off approach like they have with Bethesda so far (Outside of cancelling PS5 ports)
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
It doesn't just come down to "bid" either. Partnerships, structure and other options. Tencent doesn't have any more than Sony in spend, and Apple/Amazon have zero partnership tenure or publisher experience with EA or T2 in comparison.
I don't think MS would be allowed near EA or T2 if they're granted ABK after getting Bethesda.
Last edited:
Pipoqueiro
Member
My ps plus expired today, I can't help but remember how good it was on ps3 with free online and how common this is on PC; But there are those who say that these companies only want the good of the consumer
and pay to use online started with microsoft
and pay to use online started with microsoft
Last edited:
splattered
Member
Don't be a dick
NickFire
Member
Not certain (nor expert on UK law), but I lean towards it might. Reason would be to determine if CMA has authority to issue and enforce penalties. Pure guess.
Dick Jones
Banned
Last edited:
willothedog
Member
From now on all mergers should be settled by gladiatorial combat, swift ruling, cheaper and would even make money off PPV rights.
PaintTinJr
Member
why would they? In a poor house you won't find a smoking gun email about spending the competition out of business. And if that wasn't the panacea it should have been for the FTC to kill this acquisition, emails of PlayStation by content to defend their access to current 3rd party multiplatform content certainly won't be. Especially as they don't have Azure, and they don't have Windows and Windows Server to foreclose with.
The CMA and CAT are legally bound to follow the law, and in the case of this merger the CMA reasoning is enshrined in their report. They are legally required to act in a transparent way, that if a UK business or I as a UK citizen wanted to inform them of their failure to discharge their duty by agreeing to this merger or the changed restructure, they need to be available to factor that in. just because Microsoft think they can appease them, doesn't mean it appeases the market and denies the market the right to be involved.
Last edited:
MarkMe2525
Banned
If you're only future options for gaming are cloud based, wouldn't that imply that Nintendo and Sony (which are the largest marketshare holders) are also forcing it down our throats. These things wouldn't happen in a vacuum.
NickFire
Member
Question for UK people:
Is the CMA deadline extension consistent with their earlier statement about MS having to present a new proposal or not? It seems weird they would extend if the period to offer new remedies expired to me because why extend if new remedies are foreclosed? So did they back track, or maybe the extension is to allow MS to withdraw old offer before final rejection and have new offer then presented without 10 year bar?
Really confusing stuff from this side of the Atlantic.
Is the CMA deadline extension consistent with their earlier statement about MS having to present a new proposal or not? It seems weird they would extend if the period to offer new remedies expired to me because why extend if new remedies are foreclosed? So did they back track, or maybe the extension is to allow MS to withdraw old offer before final rejection and have new offer then presented without 10 year bar?
Really confusing stuff from this side of the Atlantic.
James Sawyer Ford
Banned
Who exactly is the market leader after Microsoft has acquired nearly $100B in market cap of studios in the last few years?
Microsoft will very likely be the market leader by revenue if Activision goes through
Ogbert
Member
I think the only reasonable assumption is that CMA and MS have been in discussions and continue to be in discussions. The finer details remain in the balance but the intention is for it to be resolved; so they've made a joint representation to the CAT, so as not to waste their time.
They've requested six weeks, but the fact that they've committed to trying to finalise things sooner means they're very close. It might just be a case of paperwork.
This thread is great fun and there are some intriguing theories, but it's usually the most boring one that ends up happening.
What will be intriguing is what MS are agreeing to.
PaintTinJr
Member
The CMA are operating as if the "drop dead date" doesn't exist, and they are just doing their job to try and find a solution to unblock the merger that deals with the SLC that they've committed to defend in court.
It could be complete and utter garbage that the CMA receive, and they are still required to follow the process so they can defend their position against the submissions in a court like the CAT.
Ogbert
Member
No.
But regulators are significantly more comfortable levying fines in hindsight as opposed to blocking in advance. It's easier.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
This ain't the EU
Jigsaah
Gold Member
NickFire
Member
I doubt they'd announce an extension was reached before the 9th rules. But imagine possible Bobby's texts to Phil this week if there is no extension worked out and MS does not intent to close without CMA approval.
- Hey Phil - great job winning that trial. But when you paying me that $3 Billion.
- Hey Phil - I heard you paused the CMA litigation. Cool. Got my money yet.
- Hey Phil - Judge C slapped down the motion, all up to the 9th now. So where's my mother f'ing money?
- Hey Phil - I heard CMA is meeting with you in August, Where's my money.
- Hey Phil - great job winning that trial. But when you paying me that $3 Billion.
- Hey Phil - I heard you paused the CMA litigation. Cool. Got my money yet.
- Hey Phil - Judge C slapped down the motion, all up to the 9th now. So where's my mother f'ing money?
- Hey Phil - I heard CMA is meeting with you in August, Where's my money.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
- Hey Phil - You know I was in Moneyball. right? See where I'm going with this? Money.
NickFire
Member
I think we have MS opposition here:
www.documentcloud.org
I saw nothing about CMA at all. Something could be worked out. It might also become the lynchpin for 9th to issue injunction though. How is MS harmed if they are still figuring out the extent of the deal?
23-07-14 Microsoft opposition to FTC emergency motion for injunction
www.documentcloud.org
I saw nothing about CMA at all. Something could be worked out. It might also become the lynchpin for 9th to issue injunction though. How is MS harmed if they are still figuring out the extent of the deal?
demigod
Member
Didn't the financial division saved their asses during ps3?
NickFire
Member
That argument worked in the District Court, but I still don't understand how. I don't think anyone entertained the possibility they would have closed over CMA objections until the reports popped up right before FTC filed.
splattered
Member
Didn't the initial articles say that Microsoft Activision and CMA all had requested the delay of litigation?
havoc00
Member
TrueGrime
Member
Craziness. Arguments aside, I just don't understand the FTC's timing in all of this.
PaintTinJr
Member
No, they would be breaking the law, failing to follow the legislation to do that. To give context, there are no real life judge Judys in the UK - or Corelys for that matter.
Our equivalent show was manned by a mere solicitor, because no one in our legal profession at that level would trivialize their life's work in such a serious field to belittle themselves to be a sensationalist celebrity decision marker, at Simon Cowell's level.
havoc00
Member
Second, the FTC's claimed emergency is entirely of its own creation. Microsoft and Activision first notified the FTC of the merger on February 1, 2022. Op.19. The Commission filed an administrative complaint challenging the merger on December 8, 2022. Op.20. Breaking from its standard practice in merger cases, the FTC did not file a federal court complaint seeking a preliminary injunction at that time. On the contrary, it set its administrative hearing for August 2, 2023—after the merger agreement's termination date. Thus, the FTC acted for the better part of a year and a half as though this case was not an emergency necessitating federal court intervention. The parties and the Court face a time crunch because—and only because—"the FTC did not file this action to preliminarily enjoin the merger until June 12, 2023—less than six weeks before the termination date." Op.20.
The FTC now perversely responds that the pro-consumer benefit of increasing access to Call of Duty is somehow anticompetitive because only one subscription service, Xbox's Game Pass, will have Call of Duty post-merger. Mot.14-15. But that is one more subscription service than the FTC's own expert predicted would have Call of Duty absent the mer-ger. In characterizing this unambiguously pro-consumer outcome as an- ticompetitive, the FTC commits the cardinal sin of antitrust: mistaking a competitive disadvantage for a particular competitor (namely, the mar- ket-dominant Sony) with harm to competition and consumers. See Bruns- wick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 488 (1977); Op.39 (characterizing post-merger expansion of Activision content to new plat- forms and delivery mechanisms as "[p]erhaps bad for Sony. But good for Call of Duty gamers and future gamers").
The FTC's reliance on Heinz for this point is ironic given that the injunction granted in Heinz did, in fact, kill the proposed merger. See FTC v. H.J. Heinz Co., 164 F. Supp. 2d 659, 659 (D.D.C. 2001) (noting that the company "announced publicly within hours of the Court of Appeals' decision [granting a preliminary injunction] that it had abandoned its plans to acquire Beech-Nut Foods").
Regardless, any quibbles about the precise phrasing of the legal standard are irrelevant because the district court repeatedly found that the FTC had no evidence to support its claims of harm, meaning that they would have failed under any plausible standard. See, e.g., Op.33-38 (explaining why, for eight different reasons plus an additional reason "not necessary to the Court's finding," the "evidence points to no incentive to foreclose [Sony]"); Op.40 ("overwhelming evidence of the combined firm's lack of incentive to pull Call of Duty from PlayStation"); Op.41 (FTC's expert's opinions "not based on evidence"); Op.49 (lack of "explanation, let alone evidence" why Activision would put its game on subscription services); Op.50 (similar, as to cloud). It is telling that the FTC's incomplete and revisionist narrative does not contain a single citation to the district court's factual findings, which "may not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous."
The FTC now perversely responds that the pro-consumer benefit of increasing access to Call of Duty is somehow anticompetitive because only one subscription service, Xbox's Game Pass, will have Call of Duty post-merger. Mot.14-15. But that is one more subscription service than the FTC's own expert predicted would have Call of Duty absent the mer-ger. In characterizing this unambiguously pro-consumer outcome as an- ticompetitive, the FTC commits the cardinal sin of antitrust: mistaking a competitive disadvantage for a particular competitor (namely, the mar- ket-dominant Sony) with harm to competition and consumers. See Bruns- wick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 488 (1977); Op.39 (characterizing post-merger expansion of Activision content to new plat- forms and delivery mechanisms as "[p]erhaps bad for Sony. But good for Call of Duty gamers and future gamers").
The FTC's reliance on Heinz for this point is ironic given that the injunction granted in Heinz did, in fact, kill the proposed merger. See FTC v. H.J. Heinz Co., 164 F. Supp. 2d 659, 659 (D.D.C. 2001) (noting that the company "announced publicly within hours of the Court of Appeals' decision [granting a preliminary injunction] that it had abandoned its plans to acquire Beech-Nut Foods").
Regardless, any quibbles about the precise phrasing of the legal standard are irrelevant because the district court repeatedly found that the FTC had no evidence to support its claims of harm, meaning that they would have failed under any plausible standard. See, e.g., Op.33-38 (explaining why, for eight different reasons plus an additional reason "not necessary to the Court's finding," the "evidence points to no incentive to foreclose [Sony]"); Op.40 ("overwhelming evidence of the combined firm's lack of incentive to pull Call of Duty from PlayStation"); Op.41 (FTC's expert's opinions "not based on evidence"); Op.49 (lack of "explanation, let alone evidence" why Activision would put its game on subscription services); Op.50 (similar, as to cloud). It is telling that the FTC's incomplete and revisionist narrative does not contain a single citation to the district court's factual findings, which "may not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous."
NickFire
Member
MS does address the applied standard issue, and at one point they argue there is no credible evidence . . . . . to satisfy either standard.
If the 9th agrees with that argument, FTC loses.
But if FTC gets traction with the lack of harm to MS because of CMA pause, I would not expect 9th to reach a final decision on the standards until later. They could easily extend RO a few days and have full review next week or soon after,
If the 9th agrees with that argument, FTC loses.
But if FTC gets traction with the lack of harm to MS because of CMA pause, I would not expect 9th to reach a final decision on the standards until later. They could easily extend RO a few days and have full review next week or soon after,
Last edited:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
I've been thinking this same thing for a week now. It's stupid to think what the Twitter warriors are saying is true. Many of them say the deal goes to the highest bidder and a CEO has to sell the company if the check is big enough. But that makes no sense.
Ar¢tos
Member
Insurance division (is it part of financial?)
havoc00
Member
Hes going to fly away like dr robotnik
TrueGrime
Member
3 billion is a pebble in the pond when your annual gross earnings are between 5.3 and 6.4 billion annual. Even on the low end of 5 billion annually, this acquisition pays itself back in less than 20 years, which is about a good night's sleep for a company of MS' size.
PaintTinJr
Member
But Corley's own statement says it is bad for Sony, and as market leader in the US with over 50% share - as the Switch isn't in the same gen to offer the same incentives to game publishers for deals, or offer most of those games on weak hardware and doesn't do a third of the job Xbox and PlayStation have done with media playback for decades, and now stream apps that are heavily used on console - the FTC's argument should even meet the higher standard.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked