Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
Is FTC core mission still to protect consumers AND competition?
The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) recent actions are alarming and pose a serious threat to our economy.
www.uschamber.com
FTC Records Related to the FTC's Attempt to Block the Illumina-Grail Transaction
FTC response to Chamber FOIA request for all records between the FTC and the European Commission or other foreign jurisdictions related to the Illumina-Grail transaction.
www.uschamber.com
This is counter intuitive at best. Espionage on competitors is an anti-competitive act itself because they get access to sensitive information that can be used to destroy competition. On one hand the regulators are concerned about MS's ability and pursuit to gain unfair advantage, and on the other they require Sony to give MS their internal information, granting access to sensitive material which at the end can be used anti-competitively.
These documents shouldnt have been allowed to MS especially by the time that the regulators are concerned about MS's potential anti-competitive practices. These documents should have been accessed by the regulators and evaluated by them.
Unless there are very very specific with what Sony should give, which takes into account the above, which I doubt. This is as if there is someone in the juridical system who had previous or has special relations with MS.
These documents shouldnt have been allowed to MS especially by the time that the regulators are concerned about MS's potential anti-competitive practices. These documents should have been accessed by the regulators and evaluated by them.
Unless there are very very specific with what Sony should give, which takes into account the above, which I doubt. This is as if there is someone in the juridical system who had previous or has special relations with MS.
Last edited:
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/B6JDB6WUKVIILKCTMMCZGKXT2U.jpg)
Exclusive: EU unlikely to demand asset sales in Microsoft, Activision deal, sources say
Microsoft's readiness to offer licensing deals to rivals is likely to address EU antitrust concerns over its $69 billion acquisition of Activision without the need for asset sales, three people familiar with the matter said.
www.reuters.com
If the info is pertinent, it should be revealed. However, MS should also have to reveal its deals information, the legal equivalent of poker's "See you".
Last edited:
That is the thing. While it is true that not all of Microsoft's stuff is public knowledge, the regulatory bodies have already been through all of their stuff. Once Sony started to appear to lobby regulators, they became a party to this whole thing. Part of the reason they are even in a position to be subpoenaed is because of their efforts, and they now have to prove everything that they have been telling, at least the FTC. Unfortunately, this info won't come in time to help Microsoft with the EU and the CMA. Maybe Microsoft appeals to CAT, but I'm not sure if they would take the new info under consideration if there were anything to contradict Sony's statements.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Right, it could have been for a lot of reasons but Microsoft needed to convince the CMA that this was not about simply withdrawing IP to cause competitive harm and they could not demonstrate that it wasn't for that reason.
If Microsoft want a positive outcome, and they obviously do, they need regulators to believe that Micorosfr will provide a level playing field but in addition to games like Redfall, Starfield and Elder Scrolls VI becoming console exclusive, there is now lack of certainty about what motivated Microsoft to withdrawn IP from another streaming service competitor (Nvidia).
The policy was specifically to steaming platforms. Which is one of the markets which regulators have concerns about. The CMA report is very precise.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
It's common practice to redact the names of individuals and it is required to redact commercially confidential information not already in the public domain. These are standard requirements fort UK civil service.
Companies who provide information to Government processes can only do so if they have confidence that it will be adequately protected, ergo that nothing will be released individually, or with an overall network effect, that results in competitive harm, is damaging financially or may negatively impact internal or external relations.
MS is 20% of gross receipts but <10% of net revenue. Apple is under 10% gross but is 20% net. Clearly this is where ABK needs to focus.
And I love the 'too low to be reported' rather than saying under the 10% threshold.
And yet Bethesda games remain on PS+ tiers that include streaming.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Which underlines the point the CMA were suggesting. Microsoft are seemingly content to allow games on platforms with small user bases, but not platforms with larger user bases, i.e. that are legitimately competitive to Xbox/xCloud in the market.
CMA Report said:
'Rival' in this case, seemingly being how Microsoft perceive the size and competitiveness of a particular service in the market. PS+/Stadia, being relatively small and insignificant, were okay. But at the time Nvidia were the streaming market leader. Microsoft need to convince the regulator that withholding acquired IP isn't a behaviour they would do in future (even though they've questionably done it a lot in the past few years with Zenimax), because the assumption will be that this new IP will be withdrawn (foreclosed) on rival platforms with the aim being to make them less competitive - as soon as Microsoft are able.
For Geforce Now, Microsoft literally took that decision within days of acquiring Zenimax. Microsoft assessed Nvidia as being a big rival, not having license, and not being content to grant them one. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I 100% agree with you. What is the point of buying something, particularly for $87b, when you cannot do as you please with it!?! But you have focus on the purpose of the regulation. Microsoft have enough money to buy Activision, EA, Ubisoft and Take Two, and were they allowed to do so, could make pretty much all AAA games exclusive to Xbox.
That wouldn't be great for market competition though because it would be nearly impossible for anybody to compete. This is the point of these regulator assessments, the EU and UK ones anyway, the US process seems to be more like stage theatre.
When you can choose to buy something at 70$ or get it free, is it still relevant to talk about exclusives?
Meanwhile sony's doing anything possible to exploit its dominant position.
I agree that the industry is messed in some way, but feels like anyone is addressing it with not solutions.
Meanwhile sony's doing anything possible to exploit its dominant position.
I agree that the industry is messed in some way, but feels like anyone is addressing it with not solutions.
Similar threads
