I guess when $68 billion dollars is ridding on the deal, crazy things may happen to ensure it is completed.
-
Hey everyone! sn00zer has created a vote for your Favorite Games of All Time! Voting ends at 28 days, 9 hours, 40 minutes, 25 seconds. Happy voting!
I guess when $68 billion dollars is ridding on the deal, crazy things may happen to ensure it is completed.
Then why was the CMA coordinating with the FTC? Why was the CMA tweeting out reactions to the ECs ruling? Why did the CMA issue a global order to stop MS from trying to acquire any part of ABK for 10 years?
It's naïve to think the CMA isn't looking to exert its power internationally. If they were simply focusing on UK competition there was no good reason to block this deal without even trying for any concessions. The cloud market in the UK is tiny tiny.
I believe CMA has absolutely right to decide on faith of the deal in the UK .
It's it institutional role, it operates in a democracy that gave it that role .
Cma should also operate logically within law.
MS is debating the last point further in the court.
I also believe if MS finds a solution to the above problem that operates within law it is perfectly fine to do it.
Any solution in this case will include a special status for the UK market that will include special provisions or lack of certain services in the UK market.This will be done in way to respect the laws imposed in the UK And It will probably entail costs and additional difficulty for MS .
But if MS is willing to go that additional step , why not?
It's it institutional role, it operates in a democracy that gave it that role .
Cma should also operate logically within law.
MS is debating the last point further in the court.
I also believe if MS finds a solution to the above problem that operates within law it is perfectly fine to do it.
Any solution in this case will include a special status for the UK market that will include special provisions or lack of certain services in the UK market.This will be done in way to respect the laws imposed in the UK And It will probably entail costs and additional difficulty for MS .
But if MS is willing to go that additional step , why not?
I had one wee look at Twitter, and it wasn't long before there were screen caps of CMA lawyers taken at inopportune moments with various annotations. I can only imagine what lurks deeper and makes you wonder what on earth will happen online later when the hearing proper starts. People need to chill.
So regulate them, then. Give them some realistic remedies that an independent body can monitor. Don't be the only regulator worldwide who just straight up block it.
The cloud gaming market overall is tiny. But yeah the proof that other regulators matter is the CMA's immediate response to the EU's decision.
I think the argument here would be very specific to the SLC. The SLC calls out competition only in cloud. MS will continue to argue that blocking the merger for the sake of the SLC is excessive. The Meta Giphy deal is an interesting precedent however in that case facebook does have a monopoly in digital ads and the argument was that Giphy could compete directly against Meta in ads in the UK. That is not the stated reason for the CMA here; there is no argument being made that ABK will potentially compete against MS in cloud gaming. Just that MS could potentially keep ABK titles to itself on the cloud and the CMA unlike any other regulator is not willing to countenance Behavorial remedies.
An UK specific licensee would therefore act at arms length from any party and continue to 'compete' as per the CMA's desires in the UK market. This also means that no ABK games would come to Gamepass cloud in the UK (atleast not in the beginning.)
Actually they do matter. Part of the CMA's responsibilities is to look at the global stage and impact of their decisions which by default means they must consider the outcomes of other market authorities and their conclusions wether it's a clear or block. Given that they have been the only ones to prohibit gives little credence that they have been genuine in that duty. To say that a remedy doesn't exist that satisfies UK competition concerns and still allows the global majority to move forward is shortsighted at best.
I thought the CMA mentioned that ABK could open their own cloud streaming service which would directly compete with MS.
Yeah. The needle you have to thread there is what kind of entity can have an ongoing relationship with Activision in terms of licensing of content for the UK, in a way that doesn't manifest as a material interest in the UK, or ABK having a material influence over that company. How to structure to avoid that argument. Maybe there's a structure that can work, maybe that's what they're actually trying to come up with over a 'simple' licensed distributor.
(Because - and I may be wrong - at this point of the argument it's not about remedies to the SLC and what would preserve competition or unilaterally implementing a 'remedy'. It's about whether the parties fall under their jurisdiction at all, and MS trying to get out from under that. That's a question of interest or potential business interest in the UK, not a question of the SLC being remedied. Only after jurisdiction is established does the SLC and onward consequences arise, and the criteria for jurisdiction aren't SLC specific)
Last edited:
Opinion piece in the FT (May 29) calling for an independent review of the CMA (paywalled)
View: https://twitter.com/FT/status/1663134649881600000?t=HB0lFmdmiJzsltYmZcXH2g&s=19
View: https://twitter.com/FT/status/1663134649881600000?t=HB0lFmdmiJzsltYmZcXH2g&s=19
Now the question is, how long will it take?
Will it be done before the original deadline? 2023 or 2024?
One thing is for sure, the CMA is not going to come out of this unscathed regardless of the outcome. The article does show a clear activist streak in the CMA and as the article points out, its not big company mergers the UK should be worried about but startups worrying if they will be denied an exit and a big payday just because they are in the UK and cannot be acquired by a leading player in any space.
What you're saying is logic, which many people throw to the side when they don't want to be impartial.
The major ones are EU, UK and USA. MS always said they would push through with the deal if 2/3 agree. And there is a reason why most people expect the US to be a foregone conclusion.
E: quoted the wrong person lol
Last edited:
A few pages back someone already called for a firing squad for MS execs unironically in light of recent news lol
The deal requires CMA approval… or the waiving of the CMA approval requirement. So, not as funny as you think.
err, so the non elected agency is Microsoft, and the sovereign nation is the UK?
If each regulator is making decisions, then should one regulator supersede everyone else in every territory?
According to the MLex article, Microsoft is asking lawyers to look into what they can do. This is not the same thing as doing it. They will get answers from their lawyers about how crazily dangerous it is to just openly defy an active CMA order. Then they won't do it. Clients ask me about crazy options all the time. Then I explain to them what the law is. There is an ocean between asking your attorney about doing something and actually doing it. It is the ocean that separates unrepresented parties from parties with counsel. Microsoft has extremely competent counsel. They wouldn't be good business people if they didn't ask what the options were. After getting advice from counsel, they will ultimately not disobey a CMA order unless it is overturned. The potential consequences are just too much risk to be justifiable.
Only if the territory of the blocking regulator is vital to the business interests of the merging companies. In this case if MS has a way to maintain their other business units in the UK while removing the part of the business that worries the CMA they should definitely do it. And what makes that easier is that the rest of the world approved the deal.
If it was that simple they would absolutely not be exploring these angles lol cmon now.
Actually if you look at the merger agreement, the ability to waive any market is already in place and does not require a vote.
It would be ironic if the CMA's work harmed only those in the UK (whether employees fucked over when a studio or two has to move from the UK to Ireland) or consumers who didn't get games via Game Pass, etc... While those solutions are not great it doesn't seem great to have a relatively small country (in terms of population and economy) serve as a worldwide veto either when the rest of the world is OK with it.
I imagine that the rumors that MS is exploring such nuclear options makes UK politicians wish even more that the CMA hadn't opened this can of worms in the first place.
IIRC someone in this thread said there would be a transcript, not a recording put up. But I'm surprised nobody recorded it even though they were not supposed to.
How about instead of pretending there's some secret underground bad guys saying all kinds of awful stuff, we call out that behavior when we see it? You can't just imagine wrongdoing so you have something to criticize. It makes no sense.
Yea because if MS goes through with this then other countries will just do the same and the CMA's (and the UK as a whole) power weakens significantly. Everybody will just ringfence the UK.
The Judge said "remind you of your responsibility" in regards to being sensible as a regulatory body, implying they could be seen as deliberately frustrating the process. And the Judge also rejected what your saying, it's not a usual case, and for the CMA to be reminded of that does give some concern about the way they're approaching this.
Last edited:
The issue of comity can bite the UK in the butt. The UK should be focused on it's territorial scope and not globally. Comity exists to prevent rogue states/countries from trying to block deals...If the CMA is blocking this based on cloud without any form of reasonable remedies. Imagine an EU company trying to close a merger and the CMA decides to block the deal for XYZ reason when 40 other countries have already approved it. Massive repercussions may be felt by UK consumers.
Edit: Not sure why other posts were included.
Last edited:
No worries. Dude just got super unhinged and started attacking and trying to dox members.
You both should probably edit the replies too, the video still shows just FYI.
It's long past time for people to stop assuming they know for certain (one way or the other) how this is going to end.
Especially since they can't threaten anyone outside the UK with the paddy wagon for it.
Uhh.. I don't think either of us are imagining what we saw, the kind of thing we think may have motivated appeals for people to be kinder, which Gowans was asking about. Saying 'I can only imagine what else' beyond that doesn't mean I didn't see enough! And it's hardly some controversial claim that things have been getting increasingly heated on social media. The thread ban on certain content lately alone speaks to that. There's plenty out there recently to warrant Sarah Bond's tweet.
This timing is impeccable.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/LB7RHERCZ5PJ3HUFSWWVWCWKRM.jpg)
www.reuters.com
FTC chair Khan accused of 'abuse of power' in new US House probe
The House Oversight Committee's Chairman James Comer opened a probe Thursday into U.S. Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan's management of the agency, citing complaints of abuse of power.
www.reuters.com