Microsoft's acquisition of Activison Blizzard

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Clueless moron desperate to get more political donations from MS

People like this need to be removed from office and banned from ever running for any office ever again.

Also, seeing some of the other stuff on this page, I genuinely feel less bad for having told that Senator Kramer guy off on Twitter. These dudes don't deserve any sympathy IMO, their intents come from a place of malice and dishonesty. Why pretend they are acting in good faith? They aren't.

 

[KiryuRealty]

That's not what im asking. Why is MS so confident that the FTC won't appeal, if the FTC loses their pi? Because the FTC can appeal if they lose right? Won't that hold them up or can MS still close regardless of the appeal since they won against the pi? Or do they simple just believe the FTC will let it go? Because thats what the FTC normally does after it loses their PI. If thats the case, I think thats dangerous for MS.

You can't appeal the denial of a temporary injunction. The injunction has no impact on the strength of the FTC's arguments at the Administrative Court trial to block the merger pemanently.

MS isn't confident at all, they just want to have the Hail Mary of the early closure in spite of the CMA should the temporary injunction not be granted. The FTC would 100% appeal if MS loses the Administrative Court case and appeals it to the Federal Court and manages to win. The only way they could have solid hopes for a win on federal appeal would be if they'd gone ahead and closed the merger.

Only issue there, and one that nobody seems to have caught on to, is that there is third party involved in the merger agreement. The Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States government. The merger agreement lays out the terms between the first and second parties involved, and pledges to the third party, the SEC, and if they do not hold to the terms of the deal, the SEC can take action against both parties, including but not limited to asset seizure, bans on sale or trading of their stocks on American stock exchanges, forced supervision of the boards of directors, fines and even criminal charges based on the specific acts involved. The SEC is generally seen in American business as the one government authority you NEVER want poking around your company, as their processes can cripple a totally innocent business for months or years, and they can really sink their teeth into a company that has broken rules or laws. They also can sic the FBI, US Marshalls, Secret Service and IRS on a company and its executives if they see reason to, as they are under the Justice Department and are a law enforcement agency in their own right.

 

[Plextorage]

Now this might not actually mean anything, but apparently ABK's shareholder agenda has a list of things they plan to vote on soon and it makes no mention of the merger.

View attachment 1620

Awesome.

 

[Plextorage]

That's not what im asking. Why is MS so confident that the FTC won't appeal, if the FTC loses their pi? Because the FTC can appeal if they lose right? Won't that hold them up or can MS still close regardless of the appeal since they won against the pi? Or do they simple just believe the FTC will let it go? Because thats what the FTC normally does after it loses their PI. If thats the case, I think thats dangerous for MS.

What is PI in this case? 3.14?

 

[morbidviews98]

You can't appeal the denial of a temporary injunction. The injunction has no impact on the strength of the FTC's arguments at the Administrative Court trial to block the merger pemanently.

MS isn't confident at all, they just want to have the Hail Mary of the early closure in spite of the CMA should the temporary injunction not be granted. The FTC would 100% appeal if MS loses the Administrative Court case and appeals it to the Federal Court and manages to win. The only way they could have solid hopes for a win on federal appeal would be if they'd gone ahead and closed the merger.

Only issue there, and one that nobody seems to have caught on to, is that there is third party involved in the merger agreement. The Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States government. The merger agreement lays out the terms between the first and second parties involved, and pledges to the third party, the SEC, and if they do not hold to the terms of the deal, the SEC can take action against both parties, including but not limited to asset seizure, bans on sale or trading of their stocks on American stock exchanges, forced supervision of the boards of directors, fines and even criminal charges based on the specific acts involved. The SEC is generally seen in American business as the one government authority you NEVER want poking around your company, as their processes can cripple a totally innocent business for months or years, and they can really sink their teeth into a company that has broken rules or laws. They also can sic the FBI, US Marshalls, Secret Service and IRS on a company and its executives if they see reason to, as they are under the Justice Department and are a law enforcement agency in their own right.

The thing is, if the FTC doesn't win the injunction it is very unlikely for them to take it to their administrative court. FTC 9/10 don't take it any further since they already lost at a federal court. Hence why many "experts" Believe this will be the final battle with the FTC. I believe MS is confident based on their comments and the "experts" saying the FTC has a low chance of winning the injunction. FTC was always the least of MS worries out of the big ones.

 

[morbidviews98]

What is PI in this case? 3.14?

preliminary injunction. to stop the deal for a couple of months.

 

[FatKaz]

That's not what im asking. Why is MS so confident that the FTC won't appeal, if the FTC loses their pi? Because the FTC can appeal if they lose right? Won't that hold them up or can MS still close regardless of the appeal since they won against the pi? Or do they simple just believe the FTC will let it go? Because thats what the FTC normally does after it loses their PI. If thats the case, I think thats dangerous for MS.

I guess the question is what is Microsofts goal by forcing the FTC to seek an injunction this quick?

Is it so they can close the deal before the merger expiry date? If so I can see FTC appeal being a huge worry if it hangs things up. But I'm in the camp MS bluffed about that and had no intentions closing before the expiry.

If its more to do with just keeping abk at the negotiating table? then the injunction not being granted(even with an FTC appeal) could help them keep abk around. I think this is what they are trying to do, and in that case FTC appeal isn't really a worry for them.

 

[morbidviews98]

After reading Idas post on the the opposition of MS/ABK to the FTC preliminary injunction request on reset, Seems like the FTC will have to move mountains(imo) to get their PI. Thats only some of things he listed. Way more to come.

 

[avenovah]

Offered Valve, the popular digital PC game distributor, a ten-year deal for Activision content, which Valve declined

Uh-oh.

 

[AshHunter216]

Uh-oh.

Valve said they trusted MS so much that they didn't need the deal.

 

[AshHunter216]

To be fair, even if the FTC loses this, from my understanding, this wouldn't be the first time the CMA has singlehandedly killed a merger.

I've personally never heard of companies merging before they have approval everywhere they need it, but MS believe the rules don't apply to them, so this is a unique case.

Also, apparently unlike the CAT hearings, the injunction case will not be livestreamed. Michael Acton on twitter is supposed to be there and livetweeting it though.

 

[morbidviews98]

To be fair, even if the FTC loses this, from my understanding, this wouldn't be the first time the cma has singlehandedly killed a merger.

I've never heard of companies merging before they have approval everywhere they need it, but MS believe the rules don't apply to them though.

What were the mergers that were killed by the CMA, but approved everywhere else? CMA was founded in 2013. So i doubt it happen twice or even once.

 

[KiryuRealty]

After reading Idas post on the the opposition of MS/ABK to the FTC preliminary injunction request on reset, Seems like the FTC will have to move mountains(imo) to get their PI. Thats only some of things he listed. Way more to come.

Idas is so slanted that he walks sideways. His analysis is tailored to appeal to XBox fanboys and does not reflect reality. Shit, he figured the CMA would just rubber stamp the deal, so he isn’t worth listening to.

Judges do not like when a party to a lawsuit are attempt in to make an end-run around that suit by rushing to execute whatever actions they are being sued to prevent. The odds of the injunction being granted are a lot better than the Team Green shills want to believe, as precedent is desperately needed in these kinds of mergers, and a judge who has the chance to help the system set a precedent and prevent a clear attempt to circumvent due process will pounce on it.

MS REALLY needs their shit together to convince the judge that they shouldn’t be barred from action until the Administrative Court suit is completed, as even talking about closing the deal around regulators that the merger contract cites as required for the deal to be closed shows an utter disregard for the rule of law and even for their own word.

 

[AshHunter216]

What were the mergers that were killed by the CMA, but approved everywhere else? CMA was founded in 2013. So i doubt it happen twice or even once.

One example is when Meta tried to buy Giphy and were unable to because of the cma

There was also some sports-related merger where the company won an appeal and the case was sent back to the cma, where they simply blocked it again and the merging parties were forced to divest.

 

[FatKaz]

Idas is so slanted that he walks sideways. His analysis is tailored to appeal to XBox fanboys and does not reflect reality. Shit, he figured the CMA would just rubber stamp the deal, so he isn’t worth listening to.

It's true.

 

[morbidviews98]

Idas is so slanted that he walks sideways. His analysis is tailored to appeal to XBox fanboys and does not reflect reality. Shit, he figured the CMA would just rubber stamp the deal, so he isn’t worth listening to.

Judges do not like when a party to a lawsuit are attempt in to make an end-run around that suit by rushing to execute whatever actions they are being sued to prevent. The odds of the injunction being granted are a lot better than the Team Green shills want to believe, as precedent is desperately needed in these kinds of mergers, and a judge who has the chance to help the system set a precedent and prevent a clear attempt to circumvent due process will pounce on it.

MS REALLY needs their shit together to convince the judge that they shouldn’t be barred from action until the Administrative Court suit is completed, as even talking about closing the deal around regulators that the merger contract cites as required for the deal to be closed shows an utter disregard for the rule of law and even for their own word.

hmm i disagree. FTC was always viewed as a non concern for reason because their case was going to be weak. FTC doesn't approve deals. They just try to block them if they disagree or settle. They don't tote nearly the same amount as power as the CMA. Most people believe the PI will fail. I think it will. But anything is possible. I think this whole thing will come down to the CMA, as the final roadblock. I think they will be the only regulator left opposing the deal come july. but we will see.

 

[KiryuRealty]

hmm i disagree. FTC was always viewed as a non concern for reason because their case was going to be weak. FTC doesn't approve deals. They just try to block them if they disagree or settle. They don't tote nearly the same amount as power as the CMA. Most people believe the PI will fail. I think it will. But anything is possible. I think this whole thing will come down to the CMA, as the final roadblock. I think they will be the only regulator left opposing the deal come july. but we will see.

You need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid and look at how these people you are parroting have been wrong about every single thing they have predicted.

If you are citing Idas at this point, you are either another fanboy/shill, or you are completely uninformed about how any of this works due to accepting faulty information from those with vested financial interests in seeing this deal go through.

Do some more reading, from people who actually know something and aren't trying to profit off the deal.

 

[AshHunter216]

Based on what I've been reading from Michael Acton, getting a PI will be difficult but not as impossible as those on Resetera make it seem.

Either way, I'm unsure if they close without UK approval.

 

[Swift_Star]

It's true.

Lol, so Idas word is worth shit.

 

[Bryank75]

Everyone see Idas latest?

Seems very biased too... saying Microsoft shut down the FTC's arguments etc.

His text;

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The opposition of MS/ABK to the FTC preliminary injunction request is 244 pages long

It includes:

- The legal arguments (around 25 pages long).

- 72 exhibits (lots of them redacted).

- The full commitments to the EC, although the agreements with Nvidia, Boosteroid and Ubitus are redacted.

- The full Sony Corporate Report 2022.

- It mentions at least 3 times the article from FT (from different sources) where Sony chief Kenichiro Yoshida warned about the technical problems of cloud gaming.

- The report from MLex in December 2022 saying that Microsoft didn't mislead the EU over the ZeniMax deal, in response to the FTC concerns.

Lots of reading to do!

I'll keep updating the post during the next few hours with highlights from it. If the opposition is published online, it should be here.

Updating...

The FTC has never persuaded a court to preliminarily enjoin a merger involving anything close to the facts here. Unlike in other merger contexts, the government gets no presumption of harm as to vertical mergers because they do not eliminate a competitor from the marketplace and are widely recognized to be procompetitive. The U.S. antitrust agencies have rarely sought to enjoin vertical mergers and have lost every recent case when they tried. Indeed, the FTC is asking this Court to be the first in decades to find a vertical merger unlawful. (Page 1)

This is the exceptional case where the Court can rely on actions rather than words. Microsoft's valuation of the deal was premised on making Activision's limited portfolio of popular games more accessible. And since the transaction was announced, Microsoft has sought to address any concerns that might be raised about the deal. Here is what Microsoft has done:

- Committed to bring Activision's games to Xbox Game Pass, a subscription gaming service offering numerous games for $9.99 per month, rather than up to $70 per game;

- Signed a binding contract to bring COD to Nintendo (which does not currently have it);

- Offered Valve, the popular digital PC game distributor, a ten-year deal for Activision content, which Valve declined REDACTED;

- Signed contracts to make Activision games available on leading services that "stream" popular games to devices of consumers' choosing;

- Obligated itself, as part of the global regulatory process, to grant streaming rights to current and future Activision games to other cloud gaming services, regardless of whether Xbox decides to stream those games on its own service; and

- Offered Sony a contract to guarantee access to Activision content on PlayStation for ten years, on equal footing with the Xbox console versions, REDACTED; (Page 2)

The FTC simply ignores these facts, claiming that it needs to offer only scant proof to stop the transaction. The FTC is wrong. The government has the burden of proof in seeking the "extraordinary and drastic remedy" of "a preliminary injunction prior to a full trial on the merits." Because the FTC's central claim is that Xbox will withhold Activision content from rivals (principally the market leader, Sony), it must also show that the combined firm would have "the ability and incentive" to foreclose competitors. And the FTC must show that such foreclosure "is likely to substantially lessen competition" in a properly pleaded product and geographic market. On each of these issues, the FTC must show that the evidence "raise questions going to the merits so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful as to make them fair ground for thorough investigation, study, deliberation and determination." (Page 2)

The FTC cannot come close to carrying its burden. After 18 months of investigation and litigation, including 56 investigational hearings and depositions and the production of nearly 6 million documents, the FTC offers only a minuscule collection of incomplete quotations in support of its motion. The record will decisively refute the FTC's claims. (Page 2)

First, there is no evidence to support the FTC's central theory that Xbox will take COD away from Playstation. The FTC does not cite a single document or witness even suggesting this will happen. On the contrary, Jim Ryan, the CEO of SIE, and the chief commercial opponent of this deal, said privately on the day it was announced REDACTED. Withholding COD would harm Xbox. It would contradict the valuation the Board relied on in approving the deal, which assumed profits from continued Playstation sales. It would cut off highly lucrative income stream to one of Microsoft REDACTED. And it would make COD a worse game and enrage the gaming community, because much of the game's popularity steams from the way it brings together players who use competing consoles. It is therefore unsurprising that every single worldwide regulator that has examined the deal other than the FTC has rejected this theory, including both the EC and the CMA (Page 3)

Third, the FTC has failed to identify relevant antitrust markets, dooming their entire case. Potential anticompetitive effects can be measured only in a properly defined market. But the FTC has replaced sound economics analysis with results-orientated "contort[ions] to meet its litigations meets" Hicks vs PGA Tour. As one example, the FTC claims that gaming's PCs and Nintendo's consoles (both far more popular than Xbox) are not in the same market as Playstation and Xbox, even though the economic evidence REDACTED have said the opposite. Why does the FTC contradict REDACTED in this respect? Because recognizing Nintendo and PCs as part of the market would destroy the FTC's flimsy foreclosure theory: Nintendo has been successful for years without COD, as was the dominant PC game store Valve's Steam. COD cannot be essential to competition if market participants thrive without it. (Pagye 4)


---------------------------------

The responses are also such cringe... 'Fatality' for instance.