Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?

  • Yes, will be approved without changes.

    Votes: 221 24.9%

  • Yes, will be approved but with structural changes to ABK.

    Votes: 102 11.5%

  • Yes, will be approved but only with behavioral concessions.

    Votes: 262 29.6%

  • No, will not be approved.

    Votes: 301 34.0%
  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
PaintTinJr said:
What did you make about him saying that the CMA's evidence for him needed detail as it was also for third parties wishing to appeal the CMA final decision deal with Microsoft?

Did you not think him repeatedly saying he'd be surprised about them not being able to provide the evidence was him laying it on thick? and bordering on light sarcasm - knowing it was getting backfilled to fit the narrative they brought to his CMC?

He repeatedly stressed the public interest, because he was well aware they were all in agreement and his CMA weren't possibly the voice of the public anymore, IMO.
Click to expand...
I didn't take much stock in it at all. As I stated, he definitely seemed concerned with the optics of the ordeal. He absolutely made a show of it, and then gave them a runway to bring it all home.
 
NickFire said:
Let's say he doesn't like whatever they show him later. In that scenario, is there any reason to believe he can do more than tell CMA and MS to either settle or begin the appeal?

I find it unlikely he can force them to do more than that.
Click to expand...
He can send them back to do it again, and he said they would maybe even trigger a full phase 1 do over.

He wants them bringing their last and final offer, so he can say it is a new merger agreement. He honed in on Microsoft still owning CoD being the same merger in a round about way.

He can equally make the report final and force them to fight the appeal, instead of doing the adjournment, but he told Mr Beard to not prepare for the appeal as two torpedos and said the schedule of the appeal would be moved if it remained. He wanted them to focus on the formal restructure offer to the CMA IIRC.
 
PaintTinJr said:
He can send them back to do it again, and he said they would maybe even trigger a full phase 1 do over.

He wants them bringing their last and final offer, so he can say it is a new merger agreement. He honed in on Microsoft still owning CoD being the same merger in a round about way.

He can equally make the report final and force them to fight the appeal, instead of doing the adjournment, but he told Mr Beard to not prepare for the appeal as two torpedos and said the schedule of the appeal would be moved if it remained. He wanted them to focus on the formal restructure offer to the CMA IIRC.
Click to expand...
Well, the story will remain interesting I suppose.

Current gut feeling is he just wants to protect integrity of his institution while the CMA seems to be less concerned about its own though. Feels like the last roadblock is how to sell the CMA's change of heart to public, and less about whether CMA will change its heart.
 
DaGwaphics said:
We do have legislatures for that and have had them all along. It's almost like they know that the laws they want would either never pass or would be overturned by the supreme court.

Think Stephen Colbert GIF by The Late Show With Stephen Colbert
Click to expand...
More like with the amount of lobbying and corruption etc they never would make it through legislation. Let's not act like we haven't seen this happen 100 times over. Something proposed that would help people or even things out and it gets neutered by BS /IF/ it makes it to the floor.
 
Last edited:
KingT731 said:
More like with the amount of lobbying and corruption etc they never would make it through legislation. Let's not act like we haven't seen this happen 100 times over. Something proposed that would help people or even things out and it gets neutered by BS /IF/ it makes it to the floor.
Click to expand...

That can be true in some cases, but most of the bills in this area put forward by the "progressive" left would be so devastating to business in general that there is good reason they don't get passed (and would never stand even if they did).
 
NickFire said:
Well, the story will remain interesting I suppose.

Current gut feeling is he just wants to protect integrity of his institution while the CMA seems to be less concerned about its own though. Feels like the last roadblock is how to sell the CMA's change of heart to public, and less about whether CMA will change its heart.
Click to expand...
He was conducting masterfully
 
PaintTinJr said:
The part that is important is not in his head, but when everyone is dunking on CMA decisions at the 11th hour referencing this decision and this judge's name in the process, because it is effectively a silver bullet if anyone can just call material difference/special reasons to the CMA, and then they ignore their duty to test against that criteria and just take a company like Microsoft's word for it.

Sorry it doesn't match the deal is finished narrative, but the judge didn't make the decision conditional because he was happy with a lack of evidence, did he?
Click to expand...

Everyone was dunking on the CMA decision at the 0th hour. It was never in line with reality. The "Cloud Gaming Market" as measured by the CMA itself if somewhere between 1-3% of the total global Gaming Market. Keeping their recommended remedies (divestiture of the entire business related to CoD being the "least" onerous one) that were written when their Phase 1 decision had an two SLCs, the main one being in the remaining 97% of the market was aways absurd, especially when the CMA has the ability to entertain licensing remedies which are structural in nature (not that they're even forced to only entertain structural remedies). The CAT was always going to ask why they didn't evaluate licensing remedies, especially when said remedies would entirely eliminate the alleged SLC.
 
PaintTinJr said:
What did you make about him saying that the CMA's evidence for him needed detail as it was also for third parties wishing to appeal the CMA final decision deal with Microsoft?
Click to expand...

AFAIK third parties don't appeal CMA decisions. They provide feedback during Phase 1 of the investigation. The CMA then takes that feedback and, along with their economists and their internal analysis, make a decision.
 
DaGwaphics said:
That can be true in some cases, but most of the bills in this area put forward by the "progressive" left would be so devastating to business in general that there is good reason they don't get passed (and would never stand even if they did).
Click to expand...
See, that could be true but we wouldn't know that unless it happened unless you have some example to cite, right? People act as if we have a free market when the opposite is true.
 
Timberwolf25 said:
No, you berating someone for a joke makes you the joke police. Get over yourself.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think I will. A joke was made, I clarified that it was a joke, and then said I found it unfunny. I explained why to someone else and now I have you, among others, blowing up at me. That's actually what happened and yet "berating" is your interpretation. Have at it, I guess.
 
Vox Machina said:
AFAIK third parties don't appeal CMA decisions. They provide feedback during Phase 1 of the investigation. The CMA then takes that feedback and, along with their economists and their internal analysis, make a decision.
Click to expand...
Correct they do mainly contribute in early phases, which was the point the judge raised with the CMA and how this wasn't acceptable that them and Microsoft carved out a deal for the UK without that input, which is why he said this restructured merger would need to allocate time for third party input and that the evidence (prima facie, as it seems at first look AFAIK) of the new deal being significantly different in Mr Prevett's word, so that this would be the source by which 3rd parties could appeal the CMA's final decision, was what he said - not verbatim, obviously.
 
Last edited:
PaintTinJr said:
He honed in on Microsoft still owning CoD being the same merger in a round about way.
Click to expand...

Nope. The language used was "Microsoft will still own Activision" not CoD. MSFT lawyer then argued that although that will indeed still be the headline, what's more important to the regulatory process is that it's actually about what is what parts of Activision MSFT will own.

PaintTinJr said:
Correct they do mainly contribute in early phases, which was the point the judge raised with the CMA and how this wasn't acceptable that them and Microsoft carved out a deal for the UK without that input, which is why he said this restructured merger would need to allocate time for third party input and that the evidence (prima facie, as it seems at first look AFAIK) of the new deal being significantly different in Mr Prevett's word, so that this would be the source by which 3rd parties could appeal the CMA's final decision, was what he said - not verbatim, obviously.
Click to expand...

Yeah but you said "appeal" as if they could somehow appeal the CMA's Final Decision and take it to the CAT. They can't. All third parties can do is provide feedback during Phase 1. Third Parties cannot appeal the CMAs Final Order.
 
Last edited:
feynoob said:
95 is already a premium.
No one is going touch that with that price tag.

As for the scandal, it didn't go away. This deal is overshadowing it.
If this deal fails, expect more people to come out and sue them.
Click to expand...

Companies don't sell out whenever somebody offers to take it off your hands for an extra 10%

When the deal was signed the premium was nearly 50%

Bobby got screwed. Lost control of the business for not much more than fair value
 
feynoob said:
SportsFan581 SportsFan581 and KingT731 KingT731
This is America. We don't do that shit here.
Left and right are working together to enrich themselves, while screwing the working class.
Click to expand...

Seth Meyers Lol GIF by Late Night with Seth Meyers


That's basically the law of the land everywhere though. :messenger_tears_of_joy:

Those that try to reverse the course have a tendency to over-correct however, thus even some of the cheap ass bastards of the world have to resist. Taxes are the perfect example of that impasse, where you've got the "everyone should pay their fair share people" butting heads with the "government should take all the evil rich peoples money and give it to the poor" camp.
 
Last edited:
//DEVIL// said:
This is all so CMA can save face. So they are pretending it's in their hand and shit. Making it sound like they have control over things about this deal.

They are not gonna say we have CMA by the balls. Read the room lol
Click to expand...
As for saving face, I think the only outcome that kind of does that is dragging it on. Like proving to the world they got MS to keep on extending the ordeal.

But the reality check will be the final result. Not the time delays. If the final concession by MS is some cheesy offer MS people at head office will laugh at as a pointless throw in, then it'll show it's been a big dog and pony show of stupidity.

Now if the final deal ends up being a big gut punch to MS and Activision where it sure seemed they were desperate giving away the farm then that's different. CMA did a great job being last man standing.

So we'll all have to see what the final deal is.
 
Vox Machina said:
Nope. The language used was "Microsoft will still own Activision" not CoD. MSFT lawyer then argued that although that will indeed still be the headline, what's more important to the regulatory process is that it's actually about what is what parts of Activision MSFT will own.
Click to expand...
I don't have access to the video anymore, but from memory he mentioned both or interchangeably as the same merger issue.
 
James Sawyer Ford said:
Companies don't sell out whenever somebody offers to take it off your hands for an extra 10%

When the deal was signed the premium was nearly 50%

Bobby got screwed. Lost control of the business for not much more than fair value
Click to expand...
????
No one wanted to buy his company at 82$ price tag. Who the hell is going to buy his company at $95?

I think you need to check reality my friend.
 
feynoob said:
Pelta88 Pelta88
Since you are UK guy, is there any change there?
We outside UK people are baffled by CMA U-turn.
Click to expand...

UK changes? No. Our system and regulations are well established.

The distortion here is that the CMA, which is the authority that made, stood by, and reiterated their decision. Somehow cowered and then asked for an extension. Against the decision they already made and is enforceable by UK law. Websites looking for clicks have distorted the process by framing it as something else for Microsoft.

Almost like a judge giving a sentence and then saying, "Let me reconsider the sentence because the defendants' family doesn't like my decision-making process."
 
Last edited:
I'm going by what I remember from memory and the judge said appeal the decision, so maybe he means a new draft for appeals, either way he seemed like he was begging for a Sony or Google to give him a dissenting voice to the collusion and give him an excuse to reset back to the phase one he mentioned a few times.
Vox Machina said:
Click to expand...

How does that one specific quote contradict the existence of what I recalled? I don't follow the point. Either way the judge has read the report and has locked in on CoD, and even floated the idea that the material difference was related to CoD no longer being significant - paraphrasing, obviously- as a means to throw out the CMA draft decision, which remains and presents the contradiction he was mostly angry about.

IMO the potential biggest risk to the deal in the UK is that Beard has combined a mechanism to lance all CMA reports at the 11hour with this merger appeal being cancelled, which on balance for the judge might just be too risk when he gets the backfilled evidence that doesn't smell entirely correct. Under other circumstances the choice would be easy, but against the risk to the CMA/CAT authority with such precedence, I think the longer he considers things the less he'll want that outcome, even if marginally unfair to merging parties case.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
‘Microsoft’ said they were streamlining 9000 people across XGS/ABK/ZM
Rumor 
19
454
Topher replied
Microsoft wins FTC appeal challenging $69 billion Activision Blizzard deal
News Business  2 3
125
3K
Unknown? replied
MS/ABK is advertising games that don't exist for data collection
46
3K
POKEYCLYDE replied
My apologies to Ubisoft, Sony, Activision, EA, MS etc. for making a big deal out of $70 games
2 3 4
156
8K
MDSLKTR replied
Battlefield 6 Beta |OT| Open Beta/Closed Weapons.
|OT|  60 61 62 63 64
3K
5K
diffusionx replied
Top Bottom