The dates are the same and it shows a company on a massive rise in spending now in a quick and sudden lowering of spending. Quite a lot has changed for big corporations in the past 12 months.
Theyâre really out here actually telling the judge their case being postponed could help Microsoft win against the FTC so it shouldnât be allowed (lol) and the judge sided with Microsoft anyway. Letâs see if their motion to stay gets approved tomorrow.
8 Likes
No it doesnât. Streamlining because you have over recruited during the boom doesnât indicate a future lowering of investment. It simply reflects the state of the market. But the brutal truth is Microsoft could close Activision and then go and drop another huge acquisition and it wouldnât surprise anyone because the calculation is completely different and retaining redundant roles is completely different to investing in key areas. One is not linked to the other.
3 Likes
Iâm actively trying to not follow whatâs happening with this deal probably since August of 22, can anybody just tell me whoâs response are we waiting for to get an idea of whether the deal will or wonât go through eventually? If we even know at this point.
The big responses are the CMA and EU and those are supposed to be coming in the next couple of weeks
After those come through we should have a good idea if the deal is dead or not
2 Likes
A couple of weeks is very soon, great.
Update from Idas:
Small update from MLex about the CMA and EC:
-
The Statement of Objections from the EC is coming next week, spelling out the concerns that they have following the investigation.
-
Microsoft will have a chance to rebut them, both in writing and at a hearing.
-
Issuing the SO will give MS the chance to access its file, including non-confidential versions of submissions by third parties. This will show exactly how much opposition there is to the deal beyond Sony.
-
If there is a SO itâs rare to get an unconditional approval (not unheard-of, but itâs true), but MS hopes that its months of dialogue with EU regulators will have helped to narrow down the concerns, allowing it to target remedies to address them.
-
Where the CMA stands now is unclear. They say that âEven Microsoft appears to be in the darkâ . In Microsoftâs favor is that most of the public responses the inquiry group received in the merger review supported the deal.
In any case, answers to all those questions are coming in the next 2-4 weeks.
18 Likes
Speculation on my part but once the FTC moved to sue, there was not a real reason to get the EC to accept concessions prior to releasing their concerns. Idas points out that them releasing this efficient gives them access to Sonyâs opposition, which I would absolutely want if I was Microsoft. Additionally, the EC releasing their objections and then reaching agreement with Microsoft as having completely resolved them would put pressure on any regulators with the same concerns.
Isnât this the same as other regions like the UK giving Microsoft the chance to bypass stage 2 investigations by offering concessions right away? Something Microsoft chose not to do. Accepting concessions before they have even fully investigated their concerns almost certainly means accepting worse concessions than they might have otherwise.
1 Like
The CMA has and still is the main determinant here. I think the EC process allows for appeals or a challenge in court should they block.
Yeah, I agree. However, having the EC fully satisfied with concessions of similar or identical points would put pressure on the CMA.
1 Like
I do wonder if this tech layoffs might ring those union concessions.
1 Like
All the gaming related layoffs are in US based studios so unlikely.
It canât be the comparison Lina Khan was hoping for. A lengthy analysis by this newspaperâs reporters sought the closest parallel to the Federal Trade Commission chairwomanâs landmark Microsoft-Activision lawsuit. They found it in the Donald Trump administrationâs failed case to stop the AT&T -Time Warner dealâa lawsuit so nonsensical it wasnât just laughed out of court, it was laughed out of the court of reality by the dealâs subsequent performance in the marketplace.
The New York Times wasnât any kinder, on successive days saying her effort to block the software makerâs bid to buy a videogame maker would be âdifficult to win,â âpushed the boundaries of antitrust laws,â ârelied on novel or little used theories,â and âupended a decade of antitrust laws.â
Many readers also turned to the noted technology analyst Ben Thompson. After politely dismantling the FTCâs far-reaching misrepresentation of the videogame market, he concluded that its effort âto effectively make up a crime is disquieting.â
Ms. Khan would soon be on CNBC insisting, âIf we see a law violation, we have an obligation to address that,â neglecting to mention that her agency defines the law in ever-changeable, convenient ways and has yet to publish guidelines to let targets know what actions might run afoul of current prejudice.
âDeterrence is important,â she added, but being deterred are likely many perfectly legal deals that would benefit businesses and their customers.
Elsewhere Ms. Khan has cited a âspecial obligation to bring hard cases,â confusing herself with criminal prosecutors who sometimes must go after obviously guilty people (Al Capone) with imperfect evidence. Antitrust seldom lacks for evidenceâcompanies hand over reams of documents and data. But too often the evidence is distorted to create a crime, a classic being the FTCâs 2003 insistence that, for antitrust purposes, âsuperpremiumâ ice cream doesnât compete with ice cream.
By now the degradation of antitrust into Washingtonâs least purposeful and public-spirited activity is a long-running story, resting on exactly such âmarket definitionâ games, which are the modern trustbusterâs main stock in trade. The Trump case was built on laughably pretending cable TV doesnât compete with streaming. Ms. Khanâs case is built on the fantasy that a single game franchise, âCall of Duty,â would enable Microsoft to monopolize the industry.
Itâs useful to put in plainer words what previous analysts and reporters have said: The FTC is lying to have a case.
It lies about the game business, it lies about Microsoftâs incentivesâto make âCall of Dutyâ exclusive to its Xbox would not only throw away a large chunk of the $68.7 billion itâs paying for Activision, Microsoft has already offered 10-year guarantees to other game-machine makers. Meanwhile, Sony, the overwhelming market leader, keeps important games exclusive to its PlayStation and yet hasnât been sued by the FTC.
More to the point, âCall of Dutyâ is not medicine for orphans. Why is this even a fit concern for government?
The answer is: Microsoft is âbig tech.â Ms. Khan was appointed to instantiate the activity of âcracking down on big tech.â
And she lies to herself if she thinks anything else is going on here. The FTC complaint even lied when it said Microsoft promised a European Union watchdog in a previous case not to make exclusive Xbox games. Microsoft made no such promise, had no reason to make such a promise, and the EU watchdog promptly issued a statement saying as much. Ms. Khan, 33, rocketed to fame as the embodiment of a new âhipster antitrustâ thanks to a Yale Law Journal article. But she might as well be her pin-striped, fraternity-pinned predecessors given her willingness to gin up a weak case for political reasons to assure her agencyâs ârelevance.â
I once hoped Ms. Khan was still supple enough of ambition, with enough youthful honesty, to resist the obvious pressure she was under to bring the Activision case, becoming the mouthpiece for its opportunistic and disingenuous rationalizations.
She disappoints in this regard, but the episode is still useful. It reminds us why the Donald Trump phenomenon was a resounding klaxon to so many Americans, including many who saw Mr. Trump for exactly what he was. They also saw him, for a while, beating Washington at its own game of nonstop mendacity and cynicism.
Ms. Khanâs authentic self still flashes through occasionally, as when she indicates her annoyance that businesses have rights or even are allowed to exist. But her day job is to keep the antitrust racket going while supplying the least hip president ever an anti-big-tech talking point. Even her honest campus socialism seems to be segueing into a typical bureaucratâs irritation that her targets are permitted to push back. Ms. Khanâs progress from aspiring renegade to establishment phony has truly been one for the record books.
24 Likes
Holy shit, Wall Street Journal calling out Khan so fiercely and strongly is pretty damning. We all knew this, but itâs nice to see yet another big name outlet dismantle the FTC and Lisa Khan so vigorously.
13 Likes
While I donât agree with the FTC proposed arguments, or most of Lina Kahns perspectives on business really, it isnât surprising that the Wall Street Journal disagrees with her considering its owner News Corp (Fox News).
3 Likes
When they say this do they mean that its hard to get approval without concessions or that its hard to get an approval?
1 Like
Without concessions
Could a new concession potentially be that they are not allowed to lay off any ABK staff for x number of years ?
From the Unintended Consequences Dept.: Sony may live to regret the market definition and theory of harm in the Microsoft-ActivisionBlizzard merger context
As the saying goes, those who live in glass houses shouldnât throw stones. Sony is the only vocal complainer over Microsoftâs purchase of Activision Blizzard King (NASDAQ:ATVI). Google was previously rumored to have met with regulators, but itâs obvious that it just wants to be able to do âProject Hugâ-style anticompetitive deals with an independent ABK that Microsoft would be unreceptive to. Nvidia is reportedly not against the deal per se. It appears to me they just want to opportunistically ensure that in the event others get a 10-year Call of Duty license (as Nintendo already has), theyâll get one as well, though they donât have one now as far as I can see.
Earlier today I reported on some class-action lawyersâ insistence on an immediate start of discovery in connection with their private antitrust lawsuit against the deal. Their complaint largely just echoes the FTCâs in-house administrative complaint. Both the federal litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and the adjudicative proceeding before the FTCâs Chief (and only) Administrative Law Judge involve pretrial discovery. That goes both ways. It also means that Microsoftâs counsel will have the right to conduct discovery of third parties, and my guess is that the top three priorities for third-party interrogatories and depositions will be Sony, Sony, and Sony.
The FTCâs market definition, which I immediately described as âgerrymanderedâ (as did Activision Blizzardâs counsel later on), comes down to PlayStation + Xbox, a two-horse race in which Sony clearly holds a dominant market share. I donât think Nintendo can be reasonably excluded from the console market, but what if that ended up being the result?
It would up the ante for Sony whenever it has to defend itself against allegations of having abused its market power.
Itâs not that Sony never has to defend against antitrust complaints. For instance, thereâs the PlayStation You Owe Us class action in the UK. That, too, is a key jurisdiction in connection with Microsoft-ActivisionBlizzard. If Sony succeeded in avoiding a single-brand market definition (PlayStation video game distribution being an aftermarket of the console market), the second-worst scenario would be a two-player market in which Sony is twice as big as its only competitor.
Letâs assume, for the sake of the argument, that those merger reviews donât result in consent decrees despite Microsoftâs publicly-declared and well-documented willingness to work it outâand also ignoring that there is no credible theory of harm under the law as it stands, and actually broadbased support for the transaction, such as from an organization representing thousands of small and medium-sized game development studios.
In that scenario, there will be discovery and there will be public trials. What will be on trial is effectively the business model that no one other than Sony has perfected: acquiring exclusive content (first-party titles, and contracts with third parties securing exclusive access to entire titles or to key features and âgoodiesâ).
While Sony is a third party, it will feel like its own business model and strategy are on trial.
If you think about it from a âcareful what you wish forâ angle, the question is whether Sony will end up cutting its nose to spite its face. Regulatory agencies are watching. Class-action lawyers like the ones who are suing Microsoft in the Northern District of California (and, with the greatest respect, there are some bigger and more powerful ones) will get a treasure trove of information enabling them subsequently to bring some PlayStation claims.
Merger opponents often have only one realistic objective: to cause as much delay as possible. Itâs been one year to the day since Microsoft and Activision Blizzard King announced the merger agreement, and there is no reason to assume the deal will close this month or next. Maybe it would be the smartest choice for Sony to celebrate the impact its regulatory complaints have made, and to work out a constructive solution before its own practices will be debated in court. Seriously, Sony should actually hope that the California class-action lawyers who will insist on immediate discovery at tomorrowâs hearing will be told to wait.
The best outcome for Sony is not to see it through. Itâs to work things out before those class-action lawyers (and others) have millions of documents about Sonyâs exclusive content strategy in front of them and get to examine Sonyâs executives. And even with those competition authorities, Sony must be careful. Today, their focus is on the Activision Blizzard purchase. Tomorrow, their colleagues working on abuse-of-market-power cases may go after the PlayStation maker, which already finds itself on the receiving end of antitrust enforcement from time to time.
8 Likes