Microsoft-Activision-Blizzard Discussion Thread |OT3| - Sony bends the knee!

[AllianceOfficer]

There wont be a stay, no Republican judge is going to do Lina Khan a favor and there are two on the appeals court.

[Sparda3g]

@MasterLeePhD

What! We back to panic mode again?

He is but again, when panic disappears, I believe the world will be cured.

[howlingmosquito (mosquito)]

My cousin Frank says chill. This is the end. We won.

[FinalFable]

@Zappy5

The difference is MS would just pull out of NZ and wouldn’t need to break the law. NZ would then back down.

However the U.K. is too significant a market for MS to do the same and also far too connected to other major markets.

I’m not suggesting they won’t close over the CMA. Simply that it’s not a simple financial calculation. There is more to it.

Why wouldn’t they close over the FTC and a TRO? Is the same question.

Microsoft’s UK revenue is lower than Activision’s global revenue. We don’t have the numbers but I bet that’d still be true for Microsoft - UK + Activision - UK > Microsoft w/ UK. It’d certainly more profitable at least. UK is important but it’s only somewhat larger economy than Australia or Canada. Neither of which was included as a requirement in the merge agreement.

You are correct the damage to Microsoft’s reputation from an UK exit would be worse than the economic damage. I think the UK would eventually compromise

[Zappy5]

@FinalFable

Microsoft’s UK revenue is lower than Activision’s global revenue. We don’t have the numbers but I bet that’d still be true for Microsoft - UK + Activision - UK > Microsoft w/ UK. It’d certainly more profitable at least. UK is important but it’s only somewhat larger economy than Australia or Canada. Neither of which was included as a requirement in the merge agreement.

You are correct the damage to Microsoft’s reputation from an UK exit would be worse than the economic damage. I think the UK would eventually compromise

I don’t think there is anyway on earth that is true. Back in the day UK accounted for over 20% of MS revenue total.

[bcatwilly]

@Zappy5

No. Corley denies appeal. Then goes to appellate court who then have to very quickly decide on a stay or not. Because of limited time I guess concern is they could err on side of caution.

Erring on the side of caution in appeal cases like this is actually to let the very clear ruling of the lower court Judge to stand, not just accept the whining of the losing party to try making their case again.

[ParkerPetrov]

@mcolt

I’m also interested in the answer to this question.

What would MS lose if it did?

Fortunately they don’t need to.

The biggest difference between TRO and what the FTC is doing and what the CMA is doing is that TRO is issued by the US courts not the FTC. The court order is being issued within the confines of the US and US law. They are prohibiting the deal from closing in the US. Microsoft would be violating a US court order and laws by closing over the restraining order.

The CMA is directly saying a foreign company can’t buy another foreign company just because the CMA says so and addition cannot buy the assets of the other in anyway globally even though it’s outside there jurisdiction. Thats a gross overreach of power. The CMA cannot dictate US law or EU law or new Zealand law. The cma doesn’t even have broad powers to dictate UK law as a whole. They aren’t judges or uk courts. They exist to protect consumer rights and competition within the UK.

As up until the FTC went to the courts nothing was stopping Microsoft from just closing. You don’t have tow wait until the FTC rules to buy a company. What stopped them when was the FTC went to the courts and got the TRO. As the TRO is legal mandate they would in essence be breaking us law by violating TRO.

[Zappy5]

@ParkerPetrov

… order. The CMA is directly saying a foreign company can’t buy another foreign company just because the CMA says so and addition cannot buy the assets of the other in anyway globally even though it’s outside there jurisdiction. Thats a gross overreach of power. The CMA cannot dictate US law or EU law or new Zealand law. The cma doesn’t even have broad powers to dictate UK law as a whole. They aren’t judges or uk courts. They exist to protect consumer rights and competition within the UK. As up until the FTC went to the courts nothing was stopping Microsoft from just closing. You don’t have tow wait until the FTC rules to buy a company. What stopped them when was the FTC went to the courts and got the TRO. As the TRO is legal mandate they would in essence be breaking us law by violating TRO.

The CMA have their powers bestowed to them by UK law. It’s no different - their power and boundaries are enacted in law.

[deiv]

https://twitter.com/stephentotilo/status/1679606089686347776

[strawman]

I’m paraphrasing, but: Congressman: “39 countries have cleared the MS-ABK merger, you lost the case, why are you appealing the court’s decision?” Lina Khan: “Well I don’t know, we’re starting our adjudicative proceedings next month and we’ll find out”

And then the Pikachu surprised face that the FTC’s budget got cut.

[ParkerPetrov]

@Zappy5

The CMA have their powers bestowed to them by UK law. It’s no different - their power and boundaries are enacted in law.

The powers the CMA has and the powers US Judge have are vastly different. I would not call that the same in any way. A US judge has the power to interpret, apply, and say what the law is. As US judges are actively interpreting the laws as its aribiters all the way up to the supreme court who has the last and final say.

The CMA is given power to rule on matters of competition. That is starkly different. If the UK cma wants to stop Microsoft from closing the deal in a legal way they still have to go the courts who have the actual power to prohibit. As the CMA have no mechanism to prohibit an entity from doing anything by themselves. They can issue a fine like a police officer if an entity violates there decision but by themselves thats it. Unless they go to court and have the courts do something

A US Judge and the UK CMA regulators are not the same thing and the powers the wield are not the same. The rules for violation of what the rulings they put forth are unequivocally not the same.

[Kals_Els]

@leburn98

I know, but I’m using Canada as a hypothetical here. My question is, had Canada blocked the deal, would we seriously question whether or not Microsoft would close over them?

Doesn’t Canada have to take Microsoft to court to be able to block them?

[Zappy5]

@ParkerPetrov

…ges are actively interpreting the laws as its aribiters all the way up to the supreme court who has the last and final say. The CMA is given power to rule on matters of competition. That is starkly different. If the UK cma wants to stop Microsoft from closing the deal in a legal way they still have to go the courts who have the actual power to prohibit. As the CMA have no mechanism to prohibit an entity from doing anything by themselves. They can issue a fine like a police officer if an entity violates there decision but by themselves thats it. Unless they go to court and have the courts do something A US Judge and the UK CMA regulators are not the same thing and the powers the wield are not the same. The rules for violation of what the rulings they put forth are unequivocally not the same.

CMA orders are law though. They are bestowed to them through various acts. Therefore on issuing an order if you ignore it that is a breach of law. This is seemingly a common misunderstanding. They are the law and their rulings are enacted in law.

[bcatwilly]

The despicable part of the FTC’s continued messaging with this appeal too is that it seems the only consumers that matter I guess are Sony console warriors or something that would be annoyed with this acquisition. They don’t care about the positive consumer impacts of wider game availability, lower costs to consumers on Game Pass, increased high level competition for the market leader Sony to compete harder which will help even their own customers of course.

I get the whole crusade against Big Tech angle for Khan here, but honestly this continued behavior would have you thinking that Sony was somehow lining pockets behind the scenes or something if conspiracies are your thing. It is just bizarrely misguided behavior on the FTC’s part.

[Sparda3g]

https://twitter.com/tomwarren/status/1679613889791631361?s=20

[Privat33r]

@bcatwilly

…The despicable part of the FTC’s continued messaging with this appeal too is that it seems the only consumers that matter I guess are Sony console warriors or something that would be annoyed with this acquisition. They don’t care about the positive consumer impacts of wider game availability, lower costs to consumers on Game Pass, increased high level competition for the market leader Sony to compete harder which will help even their own customers of course. I get the whole crusade against Big Tech angle for Khan here, but honestly this continued behavior would have you thinking that Sony was somehow lining pockets behind the scenes or something if conspiracies are your thing. It is just bizarrely misguided behavior on the FTC’s part.

For them it’s the enemy of your enemy is my friend

[leburn98]

@Kals_Els

Doesn’t Canada have to take Microsoft to court to be able to block them?

Somewhat yes. In Canada, my understanding is the Competition Bureau can review a merger and if they believe there would be a SLC, it would then have to apply to the Tribunal for an order to block the deal.

[Shadowgasm]

Breaking “The Law” isn’t always as scary as it sounds. If I forget to renew my license plates and I continue to drive, I’m breaking the law. If I get pulled over, I’ll be issued a ticket. If I don’t pay that ticket on time, an arrest warrant will be issued for me which only gets enacted upon if I get pulled over again or get stopped/arrested by the police.

After being taken to the local jail, I’ll have to pay bail to get out. I’ll be given a court date to attend to deal with this matter. When I show up and wait forever for my turn, I’ll just plead guilty and will most likely end up having to pay the original fine. I know all of this because it happened to me, lol.

I’m not going to pretend to fully understand the law and fines that go with closing over a regulatory body, but I would imagine the scenarios are similar to the one I just laid out. No one is going to take MS to regulator jail.

[Zappy5]

@bcatwilly

…The despicable part of the FTC’s continued messaging with this appeal too is that it seems the only consumers that matter I guess are Sony console warriors or something that would be annoyed with this acquisition. They don’t care about the positive consumer impacts of wider game availability, lower costs to consumers on Game Pass, increased high level competition for the market leader Sony to compete harder which will help even their own customers of course. I get the whole crusade against Big Tech angle for Khan here, but honestly this continued behavior would have you thinking that Sony was somehow lining pockets behind the scenes or something if conspiracies are your thing. It is just bizarrely misguided behavior on the FTC’s part.

In the hearing today loads of good stuff the FTC does came up. Maybe she should be focussing on that and not this nonsense.

[ParkerPetrov]

@Zappy5

CMA orders are law though. They are bestowed to them through various acts. Therefore on issuing an order if you ignore it that is a breach of law. This is seemingly a common misunderstanding. They are the law and their rulings are enacted in law.

What your missing is jaywalking is against the law, pummeling someone, and murdering someone are all against the law. However, they are not equal in laws.

The point your missing is violating a cma ruling and violating a tro are not equal. Microsoft will close over a cma ruling any day of the week if they want. They will not violate a tro. That should tell you how disproportionate those two laws are as effective legal deterrents.