Microsoft's acquisition of Activison Blizzard
- Thread starter Darth Vader
- Start date
You don't recognize his stile of writing? As he said "i've spoke with you know who". He is following and heavily corresponding with Florian on Twitter and spreading his wisdom too. He posted immediately when he registered there Xbox fanboyish twitter accounts like XboxWorld or Post Up ( which Senjutsu follows ) and these twitter accounts were never posted on IB till Curbstomp appeared. Also, Senjutsu just copy/paste what Florian says :
I don't think it's a big deal if Senjutsu posts on Installbase. That's a very small community.
You don't have to tag Welfare. He gets attacked so much here I feel bad
But enough to fuck up a calm community there and give a bad image. It was a huuuuge win when he was banned from GAF.
After skimming through the article, it doesn't seem like an unreasonable request from the FTC. Hopefully the judge agrees.
You don't recognize his stile of writing? As he said "i've spoke with you know who". He is following and heavily corresponding with Florian on Twitter and spreading his wisdom too. He posted immediately when he registered there Xbox fanboyish twitter accounts like XboxWorld or Post Up ( which Senjutsu follows ) and these twitter accounts were never posted on IB till Curbstomp appeared. Also, Senjutsu just copy/paste what Florian says :
But enough to fuck up a calm community there and give a bad image. It was a huuuuge win when he was banned from GAF.
How valid are those takes from installbase? I recognize some of those names as super pro-acquisition people from era.
OP
OP
That claim about the TRO is stupid as shit and ignores... Reality. Microsoft and ABK can close the deal today if they want, with or without regulatory approval. This will then lead to consequences for both of them. What the FTC wants, per my understanding, is to prevent that scenario from happening, meaning that they won't be able to close without regulatory checks being completed.
Saying "if the TRO fails then they can close" is an oversimplification for the dumbfucks that trust these people, it's literally twitter fodder.
TLDR - the TRO seeks to stop the merger from occurring without the necessary regulatory approval. The deal can close with or without it, but closing the deal without it can / will lead to consequences for both companies, regardless of the TRO being in effect or not.
Saying "if the TRO fails then they can close" is an oversimplification for the dumbfucks that trust these people, it's literally twitter fodder.
TLDR - the TRO seeks to stop the merger from occurring without the necessary regulatory approval. The deal can close with or without it, but closing the deal without it can / will lead to consequences for both companies, regardless of the TRO being in effect or not.
OP
OP
An analogy.
I have an aquarium and want to buy another aquarium. For that merger to proceed successfully, I need @Sircaw to approve it. Without his approval, the merger can be challenged and I can face consequences.
I state that I want to close the merger without @Sircaw approval, so he files a TRO that seeks to prevent that from happening. If the TRO stands, I cannot close without his approval. If it doesn't, I can close without his approval, but I will still be liable for any consequences of not seeking such approval under the rule of law.
I have an aquarium and want to buy another aquarium. For that merger to proceed successfully, I need @Sircaw to approve it. Without his approval, the merger can be challenged and I can face consequences.
I state that I want to close the merger without @Sircaw approval, so he files a TRO that seeks to prevent that from happening. If the TRO stands, I cannot close without his approval. If it doesn't, I can close without his approval, but I will still be liable for any consequences of not seeking such approval under the rule of law.
A fish filing a TRO to stop an anti competitive aquarium merger, now i've heard everything.
OP
OP
Still more plausible than Phil Spencer being competent.
Only until June 22? I thought it was supposed to be until the FTC do their in-house trial starting in August?
MS still has time to play dirty and that sucks.
MS still has time to play dirty and that sucks.
Yeah I'm reading the ERA thread and they're all happy the FTC took MS bait. It's all going according to MS plan
Last edited:
If this injunction stands, those wackos will completely lose their mind. I wouldn’t put it past the Xbots on Twitter to inspire some violence if they don’t get their way.Yeah I'm reading the ERA thread and they're all happy the FTC took MS bait. It's all going according to MS plan
The FTC going for the injunction does precisely nothing to help MS one way or the other.Only until June 22? I thought it was supposed to be until the FTC do their in-house trial starting in August?
MS still has time to play dirty and that sucks.
Yeah I'm reading the ERA thread and they're all happy the FTC took MS bait. It's all going according to MS plan
Everyone left in that thread is a looney. Any sane person left or got banned.Only until June 22? I thought it was supposed to be until the FTC do their in-house trial starting in August?
MS still has time to play dirty and that sucks.
Yeah I'm reading the ERA thread and they're all happy the FTC took MS bait. It's all going according to MS plan
Even though it's only temporary, some folks were praying for even that too fail.
There faces right now
OP
OP
I don't think that means what people think it means, but the propaganda machine is too strong. Here's the FTC's "request"
Basically, there are two things at play
What the TRO granted the FTC was a timeframe whereby the merger cannot be closed without their consent. This will run until the preliminary injunction hearings and determination are concluded. If the judge rules in favour of the FTC, then Microsoft / ABK cannot merge regardless of whatever I said above. Conversely, if the judge rules in favour of Microsoft / ABK, they can then close the deal regardless of FTC approval, HOWEVER, the deal can still be reversed and / or fines can be issued if the FTC successfully defends their case.
Mandatory TLDR: This does not speed up or slow down the decision. Worst case scenario, the FTC bought everybody a couple of weeks. Best case scenario, Microsoft cannot close the deal until the FTC issues their final determination, which will occur next year. Without shareholder approval, that would effectively kill the merger (even if we ignore the CMA).
Sauce for the FTC request
www.documentcloud.org
Basically, there are two things at play
- A temporary restraining order that seeks to prevent the merger from occurring until the preliminary injunction hearings are concluded
- A preliminary injunction that seeks to prevent the deal from occurring without the FTCs consent
What the TRO granted the FTC was a timeframe whereby the merger cannot be closed without their consent. This will run until the preliminary injunction hearings and determination are concluded. If the judge rules in favour of the FTC, then Microsoft / ABK cannot merge regardless of whatever I said above. Conversely, if the judge rules in favour of Microsoft / ABK, they can then close the deal regardless of FTC approval, HOWEVER, the deal can still be reversed and / or fines can be issued if the FTC successfully defends their case.
Mandatory TLDR: This does not speed up or slow down the decision. Worst case scenario, the FTC bought everybody a couple of weeks. Best case scenario, Microsoft cannot close the deal until the FTC issues their final determination, which will occur next year. Without shareholder approval, that would effectively kill the merger (even if we ignore the CMA).
Sauce for the FTC request
DocumentCloud
www.documentcloud.org
