I doubt with the amount of lawyers MS has working on this and the people involved, that this was a “mistake”
You don’t make claims like that randomly
12 Likes
Acording to Idas, it wasn’t a mistake.
The “mistake” was fixed the very same day the FTC said they are open to remedial or settlement talks with Microsoft to the pre-trial judge. Either the FTC were lying to look good to the judge or they meant it.
A lot of happening in an incredible short amount of time. My guess is that:
- FTC is aiming to win the public perspective angle of this acquisition a.k.a scaring MS to negotiate remedies.
- The CMA legitimately need to review more docs or Sony just decided to send more stuff to further analyze.
- MS knows that from all angles, the acquisition does not raise any anticompetition and are moving as fast as possible to close the deal
Looks like cooler heads will prevail.
1 Like
3 Likes
Fanboys that only drive-by post on OtherEra are already claiming MS did this because they’re scared they were too "hostile to the administrive process"and are acting like MS is backing down when it’s been anything but.
Microsoft is trying to expidite the process instead of waiting until August and this is somehow seen as a bad/weak thing to certain folk who are clearly desperate for any inkling of negative news. Wild. Some people are going to implode if this deal gets approved in 2023.
13 Likes
MS is likely walking back some of the claims because the FTC is backing down, not the other way around. This is unless you want to believe the FTC is going to engage in retaliation and threaten(ed) MS for making those claims. Not exactly something an entity that is supposed to be only working within the law should be doing.
The FTC has no legal basis to block this. It is simply a case of “MS is too big and we should be able to stop them from getting bigger, but we don’t have the power to do so.” This is why they are using what power they do have to delay this as long as possible and hope they get help elsewhere or hope MS cancels the deal. They don’t want to fight this in Federal Court, they don’t want a constitutional fight. They are trying to prove they need more authority to block deals, hence the need to wait for the CMA so they can go “See they are blocking this, we need to be able to do that, but we can’t”.
The CMA is delaying, IMO because apparently the other regulators are looking to them so they piggy back off their decision. So of course they don’t want to get caught with their pants down or be the ones who have to stick their head out.
8 Likes
Well said. It’s just a shame that these regulators can’t seem to do their jobs without the fear of stepping on someone else toe or simply trying to feel superior. There are 4 jurisdictions that have already cleared this following their own nations law. It’s looking like they’re all waiting on the EC now.
2 Likes
Justice Kagan (liberal judge) referenced the Thunder Basin Supreme Court ruling that has been referenced numerous times against previous cases like the one the SEC and FTC are facing now at the Supreme Court.
I wonder if these particular cases are to take aim at that precedent and establish new precedent for the future. This precedent is one of the biggest protections these agencies have.
As I said before, a lot of things happening at the same time. If MS is actually in talks with the FTC in regards to remedies, it wouldn’t be too surprising if by the end of month a joint statement between the two is made that allows the deal to move clearly ahead. This would not only signal to other regulators to move forward as well but also give the FTC whatever public view they need to move their agenda.
What would the remedies be beyond what Microsoft offered before (ie. 10 years of COD on Playstation/Switch/Steam, increased availability of Blizzard titles, allowing unions)? It feels anymore than that and you’re hamstringing Microsoft’s ability to compete on the market as none of the rivals have any restrictions in regards to using their assets and the rivals have a far greater position in the market.
6 Likes
Not talking ill of the guy but I think Idas has been a much more credible source on this entire thing than Hoeg. Hoeg has done great with explaining the FTC process and how anti trust in the US works but he was also dooming and glooming the deal for the past few months (40/60 chance of passing, CMA and EU twice as likely to block) he really was reiterating things that people could of Googled, good job of explaining it though although Hoeg doesnt seem to be too knowledgable on the EU and CMA process
Idas has really gone deep with how the EU and CMA operate, I believe hes an attorney in the UK or in Europe somewhere so he seems to have a much better understanding of thoae jurisdictions than Hoeg
3 Likes
Yeah Hoeg has not being accurate about the FTC either. He didn’t think the FTC was going to sue and he didn’t believe that MS would close over the FTC.
He also think that the CMA is likely to block due to FTC’s decision.
Frankly I think he working on experiences with regulators that are a few years out of date. He might no longer be actively practicing since he is a manager now.
No not at all if anything what I’m saying is that it would contribute a lot more to the discussions here if rather than just screen capping a post from another forum people took a tiny bit more time to google the sources of the information, look at in context and then formulate a post based on it.
As we saw earlier the screen cap. missed a very important part of the document that effectively changed the context of what was posted leading to loads of misplaced speculation.
Also anyone who doesn’t use the other forum won’t have any context as to who Idas is and what weight to put on their opinions so we see baseless claims that he is an attorney in the UK specialising in acquisitions or ridiculous statements that he is somehow a better reference than Hoeg (an actual verified expert).
That forum has history of adopting random experts and insiders who in the end turn out to be fake, so info from there should be treated accordingly.
3 Likes
Microsoft realises criticising the FTC's constitutionality was dumb and offers a forelock-tugging retraction | PC Gamer Woof at the headline
Yeah, this article misses it. It was not a mistake or error to put that in the response. At the absolute least, it showed the FTC that Microsoft is not backing out of the deal and will do whatever necessary to close it. That includes suing the FTC. In other words, the FTC is not going to run out three clock successfully on this one. That may well force the FTC to negotiate.
5 Likes
I literally cant even read the ‘article’ on a phone since two giant ads block it from the top and bottom? Horroundus.
I think you are correct.
1 Like
Lol that’s probably for the best, the article was speculative garbage.
5 Likes
Okay I’m not really sure if this tweet I found a few days ago is even referring to Activision or if it’s some obscure Simpsons reference but nonetheless it encapsulates how I picture the clueless FTC trying to regulate the video game industry…
3 Likes