This phase is all about trying to keep the stock from dropping in value, because anybody looking at things objectively can see the merger is not going to get approved.
Microsoft's acquisition of Activison Blizzard
- Thread starter Darth Vader
- Start date
Hmm, who's opinion should I give more weight? A reputable law website with no real interest in games or a forum poster who actively wishes the deal would fail so that his system has more games?
How is Law360 reputable? Seriously, I'm genuinely asking the question. How are they reputable? And if they have no real interest in games, are they in any position to have input on a business transaction that is firmly rooted in the gaming market?
I mean it's like saying Wedbush Industries is reputable because of their name, then you find out they've got $50 million in Microsoft shares that would become even more valuable if the deal goes through, so their insight provides a conflict of interest. I'm not accusing Law360 of that but you're saying they're reputable; I'm asking you in what way are they reputable?
I guarantee youve never heard of that website until today and if their paid for hire opinion piece was going the other way youd have some excuse as to why its not reputable. Whether I agree with it or not, these opinion article are puff peices.
Probably same as Idas, Patcher, HoegLaw
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/2KZER6KDQZLNLFMI6F3OW3PEF4.jpg)
Microsoft's EU remedies target only cloud streaming rivals, sources says
Microsoft Corp's remedies to address European Union antitrust concerns over its $69 billion acquisition of Activision focus only on cloud gaming services, with no mention of rival Sony , people familiar with the matter said on Monday.
www.reuters.com
"other people with direct knowledge of the deal have told Reuters" AKA Microsoft lawyers. Its going to be a nonstop onslaught every day of fake news, fake sources, innuendos, rumors, and mays and coulds until the CMA gives their final report.Microsoft's EU remedies target only cloud streaming rivals, sources says
Microsoft Corp's remedies to address European Union antitrust concerns over its $69 billion acquisition of Activision focus only on cloud gaming services, with no mention of rival Sony , people familiar with the matter said on Monday.
If im wrong im wrong, but i feel like thats how this saga has gone so far.
It's been rumored for a while now that the EU are a whole lot more likely to pass the deal with light concessions than the CMA.Microsoft's EU remedies target only cloud streaming rivals, sources says
Microsoft Corp's remedies to address European Union antitrust concerns over its $69 billion acquisition of Activision focus only on cloud gaming services, with no mention of rival Sony , people familiar with the matter said on Monday.
The EU's initial antitrust warning always seemed a lot less harsh than what the CMA said by comparison. Pro-acquisition folks are going to celebrate anyway though. It is interesting that there's always been much fewer leaks concerning the CMA though. They must run a very tight ship.
Last edited:
I'll be so happy when the media/PR storm ends. They've been incredibly obnoxious throughout this entire ordeal.
It's weird we had reports the SO the EC gave out had concerns about cloud, subscription services and console.
So what got them to drop their months of work to find concerns in the console space? A pinky swear?
If microsoft has already gone the lengths to offer 10 years to Sony and satisfy the console requirement, then why as a regulator would you drop it entirely? Surely that's a free win as a regulator to get that as a concession on paper? To get as much as you can get out of microsoft without much effort.
Just seems bizzare.
So what got them to drop their months of work to find concerns in the console space? A pinky swear?
If microsoft has already gone the lengths to offer 10 years to Sony and satisfy the console requirement, then why as a regulator would you drop it entirely? Surely that's a free win as a regulator to get that as a concession on paper? To get as much as you can get out of microsoft without much effort.
Just seems bizzare.
Then that's "reputable" in the loosest definition of the term.
Microsoft's EU remedies target only cloud streaming rivals, sources says
Microsoft Corp's remedies to address European Union antitrust concerns over its $69 billion acquisition of Activision focus only on cloud gaming services, with no mention of rival Sony , people familiar with the matter said on Monday.
It would be nice if we could get some names of these "other people with direct knowledge of the deal". 'Ya know, just so we can ascertain for ourselves their reputability or if there are any conflicts of interest that could lean their observations a certain way.
I mean so much of this stuff has already been made available in the public eye, why hold back the names of these "other people with direct knowledge of the deal"? I'm sure at least some of them are lawyers. Wouldn't they like increased litigation offers in their field via exposure in this case? Easy growth opportunity there IMO.
Correct. That narrative makes no sense, particularly considering how much focus there was on Sony and Nintendo at the post EC meeting press conference. It's hard to imagine a competent regulator being swayed by pie charts or being surprised at the market share disparity.
More annoyingly is that Reuters persists with the false narrative that Boosteroid is Ukraine based.
Microsoft's EU remedies target only cloud streaming rivals, sources says
Microsoft Corp's remedies to address European Union antitrust concerns over its $69 billion acquisition of Activision focus only on cloud gaming services, with no mention of rival Sony , people familiar with the matter said on Monday.
Another pro-acquisition piece with unnamed sources. There's been quite a few of those over the last while and I'm sure there will be more.
I'm willing to bet MLex's source is from Microsoft's lawyers given how vocal MS have been about this process and how one previous MLex leak had a suspiciously annoyed tone concerning the CMA. The data from MLex is also being spun in a way that seems the most favorable to the deal within that era thread.
Last edited:
Its a large and long-standing website that focuses on the state of the legal profession (as opposed to SCOTUSblog which just does court cases.) Like have you people not heard of it before?
I'm not posting that demented mongrel Foss' tweets here, but he noted the judge threw out the gamer lawsuit against Microsoft. Reee is screeching and throwing shade at the gamers (presumably because they hate actually playing games), but here's what the judge said:
"Why would Microsoft make Call of Duty exclusive to its platforms thus resulting in fewer games sold? What is it about the console market or PC games market and Microsoft’s position in those markets that makes it plausible ... Microsoft would take such steps."
Total buffoon. They slowly make Xbox the superior place to play ABK games and then foreclose when the cost of foreclosure is not as high.
And you have to wonder, if this is an impartial and highly educated judge, maybe some regulators can be convinced Microsoft's end game isn't to push competitors out of the market through attrition.
"Why would Microsoft make Call of Duty exclusive to its platforms thus resulting in fewer games sold? What is it about the console market or PC games market and Microsoft’s position in those markets that makes it plausible ... Microsoft would take such steps."
Total buffoon. They slowly make Xbox the superior place to play ABK games and then foreclose when the cost of foreclosure is not as high.
And you have to wonder, if this is an impartial and highly educated judge, maybe some regulators can be convinced Microsoft's end game isn't to push competitors out of the market through attrition.