Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13

[Shifty Geezer]

They are saying that images from the live stream were taken , manipulated and broadcast. It's extremely broad because recording could also be considered manipulation or even editing out snips of it.

I read it as saying photographs were taken of the conference (which was livestreamed), not stills of the livestream. As you say, the latter is obviously out of their hands and unregulateable, so there'd be no value in condemning protocol violations by people who weren't in the room being told not to share any media.

"All livestreamed hearings of the Tribunal begin with a reminder from the Chair that the proceedings are not to be further broadcast, recorded, transmitted or photographed."

That obviously only applies to the people in the room.

Edit: From the transcript:

First of all, this hearing is being live streamed on our website, so I must start with the customary warning. An official recording is being made and an authorised transcript will be produced, but it is prohibited for anyone else to make an unauthorised recording, whether audio or visual, to transmit the proceedings or to broadcast them in any other way or photograph them, and a breach of that provision is punishable as a contempt of court. I know you all know that, but nevertheless, that's the usual rule.

Clearly directed at the people present. It doesn't make sense that the notice isn't in relation to this, directed at the people present in the room.

Furthermore, it's a notice posted on the CAT website. No clarification. No obvious target audience. Not sure why even anyone found it and why it was shared.

 

[eastmen]

And that's part of the problem. If you don't care about it, don't comment on it. If you care about any judgements that are passed by a UK court or departmental body, then you need to care about their laws.

The same goes for the US and its laws or the EU and its laws, or any country and its laws and any judgements that they pass.

I get that more attention is often paid to the US and its laws because its the largest free market (China battles for the top market size but isn't exactly a free market) that most large companies cannot ignore, so what happens there often has a disproportionate effect on the global economy and multinational corporations and even small corporations or businesses that so any business in the US.

That does not excuse just ignoring a smaller but significant market like the UK and thus its laws and how it affects corporations and businesses that operate in that country.

Regards,
SB

I care about their reaction to what everyone with half a brain would expect to happen. It shows how little the UK government and courts know of how the internet works. It's not pre 1990 they can't control messaging anymore if they live stream what is happening

 

[eastmen]

I read it as saying photographs were taken of the conference (which was livestreamed), not stills of the livestream. As you say, the latter is obviously out of their hands and unregulateable, so there'd be no value in condemning protocol violations by people who weren't in the room being told not to share any media.

"All livestreamed hearings of the Tribunal begin with a reminder from the Chair that the proceedings are not to be further broadcast, recorded, transmitted or photographed."

That obviously only applies to the people in the room.

Edit: From the transcript:



Clearly directed at the people present. It doesn't make sense that the notice isn't in relation to this, directed at the people present in the room.

Furthermore, it's a notice posted on the CAT website. No clarification. No obvious target audience. Not sure why even anyone found it and why it was shared.

I don't read that as you do. I am reading it as them taking offence to the live stream being manipulated post stream. The official release linked earlier reads that way also

The Tribunal has had drawn to its attention a number of photographs of the livestreamed casemanagement conference in Microsoft v. CMA on 30 May which have been taken, manipulatedand broadcast in what can only be the clearest violation of the rules.

a number of photographs of the livestreamed case.


The live stream happened. Censoring me would violate my first amendment speech . It would also violate any member of the American press's first amendment rights. That protects the right to report news or circulate opinion without censorship from the government.

 

[BRiT]

Microsoft statement via Twitter:

Today’s action by the FTC to file suit in our Activision case in federal court should accelerate the decision-making process. This benefits everyone. We always prefer constructive and amicable paths with governments but have confidence in our case and look forward to presenting it.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1668377876679516160

 

[BRiT]

Activision has a statement on their site as well, which was initially sent to all employees:

We're ready to make our case for the Microsoft deal in federal court

The FTC's desire to move the case to federal court is a welcome one, Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick writes.

newsroom.activisionblizzard.com

 

[eastmen]

Microsoft statement via Twitter:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1668377876679516160

Activision has a statement on their site as well, which was initially sent to all employees:

We're ready to make our case for the Microsoft deal in federal court

The FTC's desire to move the case to federal court is a welcome one, Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick writes.

newsroom.activisionblizzard.com

For microsoft this speeding up can only be a good thing. Sooner the end result of the FTC stuff , the sooner some of these other authorities will get off the fence and make a choice.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I almost want the merger to not go through and then see how many developers at various ABK studios end up quitting in the near future.

Regards,
SB

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I don't read that as you do.

I know, and I believe you are reading it wrong.

I am reading it as them taking offence to the live stream being manipulated post stream. The official release linked earlier reads that way also

a number of photographs of the livestreamed case.

"Of the livestreamed case" meaning "Of the case that was livestreamed."

If they meant of the video results of the livestream, it'd be more correct to say "a number of photographs of the case livestream."

The 'livestream' here is a qualifier, not the object.

As you say, the attempt to silence your first amendment rights is out of order and unrealistic. Which is why it's incredibly unlikely that your interpretation is correct and mine is wrong. Your argument only makes sense if you look at just that statement in isolation and choose one side of an ambiguous phrase; reading all the info and the context, that interpretation doesn't hold and all the outrage against the UK government is misplaced.

 

[eastmen]

I know, and I believe you are reading it wrong.


"Of the livestreamed case" meaning "Of the case that was livestreamed."

If they meant of the video results of the livestream, it'd be more correct to say "a number of photographs of the case livestream."

The 'livestream' here is a qualifier, not the object.

As you say, the attempt to silence your first amendment rights is out of order and unrealistic. Which is why it's incredibly unlikely that your interpretation is correct and mine is wrong. Your argument only makes sense if you look at just that statement in isolation and choose one side of an ambiguous phrase; reading all the info and the context, that interpretation doesn't hold and all the outrage against the UK government is misplaced.

Like I said we read it differently. If it was about non live streamed information then they wouldn't have included the live stream in the release nor would there be any reason to ban it or threaten to ban it because the offence wouldn't have come from the live stream but in court or tribunal or whatever it would be considered .

 

[BRiT]

The FTC case given to same Judge that handled "The Gamers Lawsuit".

Judicial Referral for Purpose of Determining Relationship of Cases re 23-2880. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 6/13/2023. (vclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/13/2023)

Technically the purpose of the referral is for her to determine if the FTC injunction request is related to the private lawsuit over this merger. It undoubtedly is, so Judge Corley will take it as I said she would.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1668652450696376324

https://twitter.com/x/status/1668652452755677186

 

[eastmen]

makes sense as I am sure she is familiar with a lot of the data now and issues that were presented in the other cases and the ftc wants a quick ruling to this to get the injunction in and MS wants a quick rulling to get the case to the next part

 

[BRiT]

makes sense as I am sure she is familiar with a lot of the data now and issues that were presented in the other cases and the ftc wants a quick ruling to this to get the injunction in and MS wants a quick rulling to get the case to the next part

Yup. Things are accelerating along. As expected, there is a TRO until the hearing begins on June 22nd. That's better than waiting all the way to August with FTC's process.

That FTC process only serves as guidance, that the FTC would ignore anyways when it doesn't agree with it. They really made a mockery out of the process lately.

 

[eastmen]

Yup. Things are accelerating along. As expected, there is a TRO until the hearing begins on June 22nd. That's better than waiting all the way to August with FTC's process.

That FTC process only serves as guidance, that the FTC would ignore anyways when it doesn't agree with it. They really made a mockery out of the process lately.

I think the TRO is only for 5 days after the Hearing begins on the 22nd. For MS its a lot better than waiting for August. My guess is if MS wins in this case on the 22nd they will signal to other countries that they will close the deal and places still pending will likely say yes as they are all smaller markets and I doubt they want any headaches with MS. I think that will make it more likely that the Tribunal in the UK sends it back to the CMA and the CMA and MS work out something so that the CMA can pretend they won. edited in- Just to further explain my thinking process. One of the reasons the FTC is going for this block is that its rumored that the CMA is working with microsoft on a resultion and patch to closing the deal

Microsoft’s Activision Blizzard appeal proceedings appear to lean in favour of the merging parties, UK antitrust lawyers say

Microsoft’s appeal against the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) decision to block its merger with video game publisher Activision Blizzard appears to be headed towards a remittal of the case to the UK antitrust regulator, […]

www.equityreport.co.uk

If MS looses this then I think the deal is likely done. But hey they can likely buy embracer since apparently that is going belly up

 

[Shortbread]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1668776878579265536

 

[BRiT]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1668776878579265536

Yup, as expected and talked about a few posts before. This is a good thing for Microsoft.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If it was about non live streamed information then they wouldn't have included the live stream in the release

Except that inclusion illustrates there was no need to secure content from within the hearing. "It was already livestreamed - why are you recording it?"

So, I went to the source. Turns out you're right. That's -1 for correct and effective use of the English language by the government.

Dear David,

No recording of the proceedings is permitted except by the transcribers/Tribunal. When we livestream a proceeding it ought to be treated by those viewing the same way as if they were attending in person, i.e. no recording, screenshots, restreaming, etc.

The official record of the proceedings will be the transcript which we will publish on our website.

So, to be absolutely clear, in effect taking a screenshot of the livestream is the same thing as attending in person, taking your phone out, and taking a picture, and so prohibited.

The infringements in the Microsoft case in particular were from people screenshotting the livestream and editing the screenshots before republishing them.

Kind regards,

Buster

I replied saying they should pay more attention to the clause object, and should have used "case livestream" if talking about the video feed and "livestreamed case" if talking about the event. I also pointed out, as you say, how pointless and misplaced it is to expect the Internet at large to adhere to local court protocols. Why even bother with an announcement? It's not going to make a difference.

 

[eastmen]

Except that inclusion illustrates there was no need to secure content from within the hearing. "It was already livestreamed - why are you recording it?"

So, I went to the source. Turns out you're right. That's -1 for correct and effective use of the English language by the government.

I replied saying they should pay more attention to the clause object, and should have used "case livestream" if talking about the video feed and "livestreamed case" if talking about the event. I also pointed out, as you say, how pointless and misplaced it is to expect the Internet at large to adhere to local court protocols. Why even bother with an announcement? It's not going to make a difference.

Yea, you aren't wrong on the context. Its just that absent anything else in the text as being the reason the live stream is the only thing it can be imo.

That is what makes it a bit insane to me . They are streaming this out into the universe and then seem to expect people who aren't in their country to abide by their laws which as far as I am aware weren't even mentioned during the live stream. The whole thing is a bit weird to me. But courts are typically a decade or two behind.

 

[see colon]

Yea, you aren't wrong on the context. Its just that absent anything else in the text as being the reason the live stream is the only thing it can be imo.

That is what makes it a bit insane to me . They are streaming this out into the universe and then seem to expect people who aren't in their country to abide by their laws which as far as I am aware weren't even mentioned during the live stream. The whole thing is a bit weird to me. But courts are typically a decade or two behind.

I wonder if people were editing things to make one side look worse, or if it was just people making internet memes.

 

[chris1515]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1668974791884259328

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That is what makes it a bit insane to me . They are streaming this out into the universe and then seem to expect people who aren't in their country to abide by their laws which as far as I am aware weren't even mentioned during the live stream.

Well, as far as they are concerned the intro at the beginning is directed at everyone in the universe, not just the room. If they want that level of control, they'd need a contract agreeing to T&Cs of non editing or reproduction to be electronically signed for anyone to view said livestream. You'd think people working for the legal services would kinda get this...