Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
A preliminary hearing in court where the facts of the dispute will be discussed and the court will decide how much of the case necessitates actual hearing in court. It will also decide if any further evidence it required from relevant parties. Unsubstantiated asks will rejected with a view to narrowing the trial to the pertinent points - e.g. the non-specific and low-bar use of things being "unlawful", which is what lawyers use when they cannot cite a specific piece of legislation or stated policy that they believe is being used incorrectly.
This should the last case management conference.
GhostofWar
Regular
I watched some of this, The 4 week on cloud comment was a follow on when the MS lawyer accused the cma of not even talking to some of the cloud parties they used as evidence in their case, I think it was to do with the ms side wanting to roll out these 3 parties to provide evidence that the cma didn't talk to them, this started to get a bit firey between both sides and the judge pulled them in and said they will have a chance to go at each other later. This started during talk about the cma economic accounting being flawed and them wanting to roll out an expert witness to disprove their maths. The 12th is when they work out what new evidence ms can use if any.
The cma lawyer wasn't doing himself many favours, he seemed quite flippant at times and at one point asked for more time to work through some evidence and the judge asked why do they need more time to explore evidence that they had provided. MS probably has zero chance but the cma lawyer was painful to watch at times.
The cma lawyer wasn't doing himself many favours, he seemed quite flippant at times and at one point asked for more time to work through some evidence and the judge asked why do they need more time to explore evidence that they had provided. MS probably has zero chance but the cma lawyer was painful to watch at times.
Um, yeah, it's their job to have these discussions! Microsoft acting as if this is somehow a one-way street between World Trade regulatory bodies. And any 'work product' that CMA officials/investigators had written, verbally recorded, and/or digitally communicated that were generated during these conversations and investigation, don't need to be disclosed to the parties involved in the M&A investigatory process, and those 'work product' notes/emails/communications are actually protected.
What Microsoft lawyers really want to say, is that the CMA didn't allow Microsoft to hold their hands at each step of the way, before arriving at their decision. Good try though...
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I don't know if the CMA have their own in-house legal representation or if they, like many Government departments and agencies, use UK's Government Legal Department (GLD) or perhaps even solicit outside counsel as my department does from time to time. Generally if the lawyer is not being as polished as you would expect, it could be they are just not very good or, more likely, they have not had time to fully consider the evidence. A ludicrously large amount of evidence is at stake here and it would be a change for any representative to fully memorise it all.
Coincidentally, Sony were also in a separate CAT tribunal yesterday. I wonder if they waved to Microsoft in the waiting room.
Probably not..
Last edited by a moderator:
GhostofWar
Regular
You have probably called it here, right at the start he said he had only been on the case 2 days. I found that puzzling and wondered what was up with that but you have just cleared that up, cheers.
they should have had the whole process as time to fully consider the evidence. If they can't defend the choice they made then what was the point of even making it.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
"they" who? Legal representation for a tribunal would have been brought in specifically for this. The CMA may well have consulted legal advisors during their deliberations but the representation at a tribunal would likely requirement somebody equivalent to a barrister.
The cma should be able to give the legal team all documents pertaining to how their decision was found. I am actually surprised that there wasn't a legal team already in place during the CMA process.
Yes, but it probably takes longer than 2 days to read and understand it all. From the sounds of it that's all this CMA lawyer has had.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
The CMA published thousands of pages of reports, analysis and redacted documents. That'll be a fraction of what they hold themselves.
Sounds like a CMA and that lawyer problem. They should likely figure out a way to fix that for future appeals.
A Variety interview with Bobby Kotick on the future of Activision, and his. I mostly quoted the relevant stuff related to the acquisition.
Bobby Kotick Breaks His Silence: Embattled Activision CEO Addresses Toxic Workforce Claims as Microsoft Deal Hangs in Balance
As I mentioned before, Activision is definitely in the better (re)negotiating position than Microsoft. There are stories/rumors now popping up (and not just on social media) that others are 'now' interested in Activision. The next few months will be interesting indeed.
Bobby Kotick Breaks His Silence: Embattled Activision CEO Addresses Toxic Workforce Claims as Microsoft Deal Hangs in Balance
As I mentioned before, Activision is definitely in the better (re)negotiating position than Microsoft. There are stories/rumors now popping up (and not just on social media) that others are 'now' interested in Activision. The next few months will be interesting indeed.
Last edited:
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
It's not conspiracy that motives them. It's ideology.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
And what ideology are you claiming is being suppressed or favoured? Because from where I stand, all I see if a bunch of greedy companies.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
And a regular hell-bent on stopping big tech mergers, especially urged by the FTC people on the same ideological path. I think it's extremely naïve to think they were actually worried about the Cloud.
Acquisition won't change that.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
No, it won't. What I'm trying to reach is a rationale reason for why people believe there is bias against Microsoft on this issue. The UK Government works very closely with Microsoft and, like defence and security companies, there are teams at Microsoft with very high government security clearances because they provide IT solutions for the most sensitive information needs.
This is a positive working relationship that has existed for decades and only deepens with increasing sue of Microsoft's cloud solutions and private server arrangements. The UK Government is one of Microsoft's biggest customers in Europe and Microsoft is one of the few companies trusted to secure Government and public information.
Which is kind of weird when there is this suggested irrational UK Government bias against Microsoft. Kind of doesn't make a lot of sense, wouldn't you say?
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
It's not anti-MS. See above.
Similar threads
