Support NeoGAF

[PaintTinJr]

The deal cant get closed without cma approval currently. And if both parties cant renew the deal, then that means the merger falls through and wont proceed, as both parties arent going to merge.

As for ftc, they can only sue to block. I think its the DOJ that approves it. Both agency work together. But if FTC sues to block, that means they need to win their case.
In this case, if both party dont renew, then the deal is off. FTC gets a win. If both party renew, then the ftc will need to win their case.

But its all depend on CMA decision.

From a fairly recent interview back around page 900 IIRC (with Lina ) and two journalists I got the impression they can sue even if the merger fails, and bring sanctions against Microsoft to discourage such action in future.

That was the reason I was asking in regards of their own court rather than federal court - because it seems like the injunction is only needed while the merger hasn't failed which I was theorising could give the weak FTC tiger back some CMA like power to punitively punish Microsoft after the merger failed. Effectively stacking decks in the FTC's favour enough to get the win, or draw out a loss long enough to make it a win by the heavy collateral damage Microsoft's share price would see from battling the government.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

The CMA decision to block Microsoft’s Activision deal could cost us dearly in the UK - CityAM

The CMA decision to block Microsoft from acquiring Activision could be painful in the long-term as businesses get scared off

www.cityam.com

The CMA should be listening to all this talk.

The CMA gets direct access to MS paid shilling, they don't need to look for it from unknown paid shills in previously unknown publications.

 

[feynoob]

One of the most cringe things about this whole process has been the sheer number of people who talk about MS money like it's their own. Bragging about warchests and infinite funds or amounts in the millions being "pennies".

Welcome to Twitter. Bunch of grown ups acting like toddlers.

 

[feynoob]

From a fairly recent interview back around page 900 IIRC (with Lina ) and two journalists I got the impression they can sue even if the merger fails, and bring sanctions against Microsoft to discourage such action in future.

That was the reason I was asking in regards of their own court rather than federal court - because it seems like the injunction is only needed while the merger hasn't failed which I was theorising could give the weak FTC tiger back some CMA like power to punitively punish Microsoft after the merger failed. Effectively stacking decks in the FTC's favour enough to get the win, or draw out a loss long enough to make it a win by the heavy collateral damage Microsoft's share price would see from battling the government.

The problem is that the FTC has to deal with American laws. And in this case, it favors big corporations like MS.

 

[Pelta88]

One of the most cringe things about this whole process has been the sheer number of people who talk about MS money like it's their own. Bragging about warchests and infinite funds or amounts in the millions being "pennies".

Truth be told I'm just glad we're not getting FOSS ramblings posted here any more. That shit was exhausting.

 

[feynoob]

Truth be told I'm just glad we're not getting FOSS ramblings posted here any more. That shit was exhausting.

Me too. Had to mute him and senju.
They are treating MS like it's their parent or something.

 

[gothmog]

The letter also makes it clear that there were waivers in place from Microsoft and ABK that dictates what could be discussed.

"As part of the CMA’s investigation of Microsoft’s anticipated acquisition of Activision, there was engagement with numerous overseas competition authorities. The CMA had waivers in place from the merging parties, as well as some third parties, in relation to several overseas authorities, including the FTC and the European Commission. This enabled the CMA to share certain information with those authorities more freely. One difficulty which the CMA can face in cases such as this, and indeed did face in this case in relation to the FTC in the latter stages of the investigation, is that these waivers can be withdrawn, which – while not preventing engagement with counterparts – can limit the extent to which the CMA can exchange certain information, unless other gateways for information exchange are available. "

So MS threw a fit at the end.

 

[PaintTinJr]

The problem is that the FTC has to deal with American laws. And in this case, it favors big corporations like MS.

Yeah, I get that, but unlike the situation where a company closes a deal - absent an injunction - which they could then use to argue in federal court to nullify an FTC court finding against them because their findings wouldn't trump the legality of the reality that the merger closed.

However If the merger is abandoned and the FTC take proceedings against them in FTC court process, I would expect the failed merging party to be forced to wait until the FTC process and FTC decision was rendered before they could get a federal court to intercede to appeal that FTC court verdict, which would probably be harder as they then wouldn't have a legalised closed merger to materially refute that findings that led to the verdict, potentially leading to a drawn out appeal all the way to the supreme court.

 

[Nubulax]

Why are dudes like this trying to spin this into a bad thing? Protecting the children is now bad?

The simping for MS is so freaking sad

 

[feynoob]

Yeah, I get that, but unlike the situation where a company closes a deal - absent an injunction - which they could then use to argue in federal court to nullify an FTC court finding against them because their findings wouldn't trump the legality of the reality that the merger closed.

However If the merger is abandoned and the FTC take proceedings against them in FTC court process, I would expect the failed merging party to be forced to wait until the FTC process and FTC decision was rendered before they could get a federal court to intercede to appeal that FTC court verdict, which would probably be harder as they then wouldn't have a legalised closed merger to materially refute that findings that led to the verdict, potentially leading to a drawn out appeal all the way to the supreme court.

I think R reksveks might help us in this case.

 

[gothmog]

Yeah, I get that, but unlike the situation where a company closes a deal - absent an injunction - which they could then use to argue in federal court to nullify an FTC court finding against them because their findings wouldn't trump the legality of the reality that the merger closed.

However If the merger is abandoned and the FTC take proceedings against them in FTC court process, I would expect the failed merging party to be forced to wait until the FTC process and FTC decision was rendered before they could get a federal court to intercede to appeal that FTC court verdict, which would probably be harder as they then wouldn't have a legalised closed merger to materially refute that findings that led to the verdict, potentially leading to a drawn out appeal all the way to the supreme court.

I'd imagine the FTC would have the chance to take it to court before the deal closes. We probably would not let it get that messy.

 

[drganon]

Why are dudes like this trying to spin this into a bad thing? Protecting the children is now bad?

At least all the comments were telling them how pathetic they are.

 

[ToadMan]

That's specific to the federal court process isn't it?

I thought in their own process they have a very high success rate - but federal court has now ruled that they can't just prosecute with their internal process.

So currently the FTC is going through its process at the administrative court - this system was established to make the process faster and get judges with specific expertise in the subject matter to consider the case.

This is basically a guaranteed win for the FTC, because even if that administrative judge finds against the FTC, it’s just pushed back to the FTC to review and much like the CMA, the FTC has historically reconfirmed its original decision.

However, unlike the UK, that FTC ruling from its court can be appealed at federal court level. Here the FTC has about a 70% record of winning because the fed courts usually defer to the administrative court ruling - after all the administrative court are subject matter experts while the Fed is a general purpose court. That appeal process can go higher again but then it becomes a very protracted process.

Where the FTC has a “poor” record in federal court is taking out initial injunctions - this is where the administrative court process hasn’t yet completed (or even properly started) and the merging parties are going ahead anyway. To stop the merger a Federal injunction is required and the FTC has to argue why it’s in the public interest for the merger to be blocked pending it’s investigation. These injunction proceedings are being contested without having completed the FTC administrative court proceedings and perhaps without all the data to make a case.

Given the CMA have blocked the deal, the FTC currently has no need for a federal injunction against MS-ABK.

The FTC administrative court case begins in August so one theory is that prior to that in July, MS/ABK will terminate their merger and the FTC litigation will become unnecessary.

Also as a side note the “losses” the FTC are taking in Federal court serve a purpose - they establish Federal legal precedents for use in future.

The Meta/Within injunction was a “loss” for the FTC but the verdict in that case established the precedent that nascent markets - cloud gaming could be such an example - must be afforded the same weight as established markets. In that case neither party could provide the court with a suitable definition of a “nascent” market vs a mature one. As a result the judge concluded the same standards had to be applied to markets regardless of their maturity.

So that FTC loss against Meta/Within establishes a precedent at fed court that makes a case against MS-ABK easier to argue in my opinion when it comes to cloud gaming.

But Federal court is difficult to predict because the judges are not subject matter experts unlike the administrative court judges who are appointed based on their subject matter expertise.

 

[Heisenberg007]

So currently the FTC is going through its process at the administrative court - this system was established to make the process faster and get judges with specific expertise in the subject matter to consider the case.

This is basically a guaranteed win for the FTC, because even if that administrative judge finds against the FTC, it’s just pushed back to the FTC to review and much like the CMA, the FTC has historically reconfirmed its original decision.

However, unlike the UK, that FTC ruling from its court can be appealed at federal court level. Here the FTC has about a 70% record of winning because the fed courts usually defer to the administrative court ruling - after all the administrative court are subject matter experts while the Fed is a general purpose court. That appeal process can go higher again but then it becomes a very protracted process.

Where the FTC has a “poor” record in federal court is taking out initial injunctions - this is where the administrative court process hasn’t yet completed (or even properly started) and the merging parties are going ahead anyway. To stop the merger a Federal injunction is required and the FTC has to argue why it’s in the public interest for the merger to be blocked pending it’s investigation. These injunction proceedings are being contested without having completed the FTC administrative court proceedings and perhaps without all the data to make a case.

Given the CMA have blocked the deal, the FTC currently has no need for a federal injunction against MS-ABK.

The FTC administrative court case begins in August so one theory is that prior to that in July, MS/ABK will terminate their merger and the FTC litigation will become unnecessary.

Also as a side note the “losses” the FTC are taking in Federal court serve a purpose - they establish Federal legal precedents for use in future.

The Meta/Within injunction was a “loss” for the FTC but the verdict in that case established the precedent that nascent markets - cloud gaming could be such an example - must be afforded the same weight as established markets. In that case neither party could provide the court with a suitable definition of a “nascent” market vs a mature one. As a result the judge concluded the same standards had to be applied to markets regardless of their maturity.

So that FTC loss against Meta/Within establishes a precedent at fed court that makes a case against MS-ABK easier to argue in my opinion when it comes to cloud gaming.

But Federal court is difficult to predict because the judges are not subject matter experts unlike the administrative court judges who are appointed based on their subject matter expertise.

This is the best explanation of this whole issue and also puts into perspective how FTC can also be a noticeable barrier for MS/ABK if it comes to that.

 

[Ronin_7]

Lol and this wraps it up for the idea of CMA changing their idea at all, let alone the dream of changing it before the end of July bypassing any legal procedure like Microsoft wanted

Time for Brad to start putting in the re-negotiation contract with Activision that leaving the UK option

Activision talks probably not going well or they would just extend the contract and wait for the appeals to end, it'll take years but time will eventually pass.

Instead Brad is flying everywhere seeing if anything sticks.

 

[Ronin_7]

Let's not forget that the premium Microsoft paid back in January 2022 is Long gone, Activision stock is much much more valuable now.

A new price will have to be set, according to my math Microsoft will need to pay 105-110$ per share right now to match the older premium offer.

Anything from 73-78 billion dollars should be accepted by Bobby & Shareholders.

 

[ToadMan]

Yeah, I get that, but unlike the situation where a company closes a deal - absent an injunction - which they could then use to argue in federal court to nullify an FTC court finding against them because their findings wouldn't trump the legality of the reality that the merger closed.

However If the merger is abandoned and the FTC take proceedings against them in FTC court process, I would expect the failed merging party to be forced to wait until the FTC process and FTC decision was rendered before they could get a federal court to intercede to appeal that FTC court verdict, which would probably be harder as they then wouldn't have a legalised closed merger to materially refute that findings that led to the verdict, potentially leading to a drawn out appeal all the way to the supreme court.

Ah I think I see what you’re getting at now.

I think any punitive fine or judgement against MS would only come if they went ahead with the merger only to subsequently lose in court to the FTC.

If they terminate the acquisition I don’t believe there are grounds to levy fines or other measures on them. Unless there is some other “smoking gun” of impropriety in the documents the FTC has subpoenaed.

There is an ongoing case of Illumina/Grail. The FTC side is here

https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/201-0144-illumina-inc-grail-inc-matter

In summary, this merger was concluded already before regulators had given their approval.

The EC immediately insisted on a “hold separate” order pending a review - effectively this meant the merger was done financially but the entities were required not to integrate business activities.

After going through a long process (it’s been 2 years now since the acquisition closed), the EC and FTC have ordered Illumina to divest Grail. Illumina is of course appealing those orders in both jurisdictions.

I believe if Illumina lose on appeal, not only will they be forced to sell Grail at a loss (after all it’ll be a “shotgun” sale) but be open to fines and/or other measures because they went ahead with the merger without regulatory approval - the “jumping the gun law” as its called in the EC. Not to mention the limbo they find themselves in where they are financially tied at the hip but unable to capitalise on the investment.

Grail by the way develop a new early cancer detection test and regulators believe Illumina would foreclose their products from rivals in order to maintain an artificially high price. In fact the EC even found Illumina may limit, delay or degrade the quality of supplies to rivals post merger in order to gain a competitive advantage - sounds much like what Jim Ryan suggested about CoD post acquisition.

Regulators believe a corp would gamble people’s lives to make money (well thats the US healthcare market and what it has become with weak regulation) - yet MS assuredly wouldn’t do the same with entertainment software…

 

[reksveks]

I think any punitive fine or judgement against MS would only come if they went ahead with the merger only to subsequently lose in court to the FTC.

If they terminate the acquisition I don’t believe there are grounds to levy fines or other measures on them. Unless there is some other “smoking gun” of impropriety in the documents the FTC has subpoenaed.

This is my understanding.

The only thing is that I think the FTC will have the same abilty as the CMA order re limiting MS ability to acquire ABK in the 10 years again either partially or completely. It might be broader.

A fine is unlikely.

 

[MistBreeze]

In this day and age seeing a major regulator do its job properly is breath of fresh air
It give us consumers hope that mega corporations can be stopped
They are threatening governments and countries , bribing governments officials and want to dominate no matter what

 

[Heisenberg007]

Let's not forget that the premium Microsoft paid back in January 2022 is Long gone, Activision stock is much much more valuable now.

A new price will have to be set, according to my math Microsoft will need to pay 105-110$ per share right now to match the older premium offer.

Anything from 73-78 billion dollars should be accepted by Bobby & Shareholders.

+ a higher total cancelation/block penalty. The $3 billion covered the period until July 18.

Any extension or contract renewal would include that $3 billion (until July 18) and a subsequent period until the acquisition is approved or blocked after the appeal.

So more like a $6-$7 billion penalty, in addition to the $105-$110 per share.

 

[Ronin_7]

+ a higher total cancelation/block penalty. The $3 billion covered the period until July 18.

Any extension or contract renewal would include that $3 billion (until July 18) and a subsequent period until the acquisition is approved or blocked after the appeal.

So more like a $6-$7 billion penalty, in addition to the $105-$110 per share.

Seems about right for Bobby to accept.

Microsoft has little over a month to make the new deal.

 

[intheinbetween]

In this day and age seeing a major regulator do its job properly is breath of fresh air
It give us consumers hope that mega corporations can be stopped
They are threatening governments and countries , bribing governments officials and want to dominate no matter what

smh

So, you're saying just because the CMA is opposing the deal they are the saviors of us consumers? Does that imply they can't be wrong? Thank for the CMA (god) for protecting us (all of us? wtf!) from evil mega corporations threatening governments and countries while bribing to dominate godlike

This is really some kind of Mr. Robot fantasy.

If the deal fails because of the CMA, MS are free to decide where to invest their money for new infrastructure, services, etc.. they are free to do so, with their cons and pros, but that's not a threat to any government or country, that's a business decision, they're not saying to unplug every MS service (Azure, Office, Security, etc..) from the UK, but investment would go to other destinations.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Ah I think I see what you’re getting at now.

I think any punitive fine or judgement against MS would only come if they went ahead with the merger only to subsequently lose in court to the FTC.

If they terminate the acquisition I don’t believe there are grounds to levy fines or other measures on them. Unless there is some other “smoking gun” of impropriety in the documents the FTC has subpoenaed.

There is an ongoing case of Illumina/Grail. The FTC side is here

https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/201-0144-illumina-inc-grail-inc-matter

In summary, this merger was concluded already before regulators had given their approval.

The EC immediately insisted on a “hold separate” order pending a review - effectively this meant the merger was done financially but the entities were required not to integrate business activities.

After going through a long process (it’s been 2 years now since the acquisition closed), the EC and FTC have ordered Illumina to divest Grail. Illumina is of course appealing those orders in both jurisdictions.

I believe if Illumina lose on appeal, not only will they be forced to sell Grail at a loss (after all it’ll be a “shotgun” sale) but be open to fines and/or other measures because they went ahead with the merger without regulatory approval - the “jumping the gun law” as its called in the EC. Not to mention the limbo they find themselves in where they are financially tied at the hip but unable to capitalise on the investment.

Grail by the way develop a new early cancer detection test and regulators believe Illumina would foreclose their products from rivals in order to maintain an artificially high price. In fact the EC even found Illumina may limit, delay or degrade the quality of supplies to rivals post merger in order to gain a competitive advantage - sounds much like what Jim Ryan suggested about CoD post acquisition.

Regulators believe a corp would gamble people’s lives to make money (well thats the US healthcare market and what it has become with weak regulation) - yet MS assuredly wouldn’t do the same with entertainment software…

That's two great write ups of the contrast between FTC Administrative court - I couldn't remember the name - and Federal court actions against mergers IMO.

The part I would query is whether the FTC can sue beyond the appeal based on Lina's hour long chat in the interview I mentioned, and my reasoning is purely money and resources of the FTC, and who pays for that. In the interview she mentioned the limited resources of the FTC and how they needed greater funding, and contrasting with the CMA being defended by the CAT telling merging parties that the CMA won't be covering their costs - even losing at the CAT - if they were merely doing their job.

In this merger the FTC will have likely ran to millions in expenses for administrative and potential federal court preparation and if the merger is blocked by the CMA the FTC don't recovery those costs if they can't continue to sue, and can't exact future prevention by punitive measures if they can no longer sue - costing the US tax payer money for nothing, leading to an inevitable pay to win scenario for mega-corps where the FTC are constrained to fight illegal mergers by their funding rather than their mandate, which I don't believe would be true in the US where litigation is so commonplace IMO from the outside looking in.

 

[GHG]

They are threatening governments and countries , bribing governments officials and want to dominate no matter what

But yet some people genuinely believe (or want to believe) they are behaving in this manner because they want to do this in order to benefit us, the consumer.

The naivety is off the charts.

 

[Heisenberg007]

But yet some people genuinely believe (or want to believe) they are behaving in this manner because they want to do this in order to benefit us, the consumer.

The naivety is off the charts.

Same vibes

 

[mrmustard]

Yo freaks, something new in here since the last 20 or so pages or still just your little trench warfares?

 

[GHG]

Just in: The outcome last time Nadella said "let us have competition", but this time in the browser/AI space:

I typed “Chrome” into the Microsoft Edge search bar.
I was greeted with a full-screen Microsoft Bing AI chatbot window, which promptly told me it was searching for... Bing features.

Maybe this doesn’t seem like a big deal to you. I’m using Microsoft’s search engine in Microsoft’s browser on Microsoft’s operating system, after all — why should Microsoft willingly link me to a competitor?

Let me put things a different way: Microsoft just gave itself a full-screen ad in search results by faking an AI interaction. This “search result” is juicing Microsoft’s own product instead of respecting its users’ intent.

Microsoft has no shame: Bing spit on my ‘Chrome’ search with a fake AI answer

I typed Chrome — and got an Edge ad written by “AI”

www.theverge.com

Let's take a look at what Nadella said prior to this latest development with "AI" search:

Let’s face it, Google dominates [search]. We are thrilled to be here launching Bing to compete

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella says he hopes Google is ready to compete when it comes to A.I. search: ‘I want people to know that we made them dance’

He added that Google is the “800-pound gorilla in this.”

fortune.com

Up to now, you’re absolutely right. Google has dominated this market by a significant margin. We hope, in fact, if anything, having two or multiple search engines — there’s not just us, there’ll be other competitors — that by having more evenly spread search share, it will only help publishers get traffic from multiple sources. And by the way, advertisers [will get] better pricing.

And so publishers will make more money, advertisers will make more money, and users will have great innovation. Think about what a great day it’ll be.

Microsoft thinks AI can beat Google at search — CEO Satya Nadella explains why

Bing is coming for Google search in a big, AI-powered way.

www.theverge.com

Such competition.

Such innovation.

It all sounds so familiar doesn't it?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Just in: The outcome last time Nadella said "let us have competition", but this time in the browser/AI space:

Microsoft has no shame: Bing spit on my ‘Chrome’ search with a fake AI answer

I typed Chrome — and got an Edge ad written by “AI”

www.theverge.com

Let's take a look at what Nadella said prior to this latest development with "AI" search:

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella says he hopes Google is ready to compete when it comes to A.I. search: ‘I want people to know that we made them dance’

He added that Google is the “800-pound gorilla in this.”

fortune.com

Microsoft thinks AI can beat Google at search — CEO Satya Nadella explains why

Bing is coming for Google search in a big, AI-powered way.

www.theverge.com

Such competition.

Such innovation.

It all sounds so familiar doesn't it?

Microsoft's long standing feud with Google is kind of hilarious. Google for "Scroogled" if you want to learn about something amazing MS actually did.

 

[Three]

Just in: The outcome last time Nadella said "let us have competition", but this time in the browser/AI space:

Such competition.

Such innovation.

It all sounds so familiar doesn't it?

"Google has dominated this market by a significant margin. We hope, in fact, if anything, having two or multiple search engines — there’s not just us, there’ll be other competitors — that by having more evenly spread search share, it will only help publishers get traffic from multiple sources. "

He's not wrong about Google dominating there but he's so full of shit about hoping to have multiple competitors in the market. MS made a 10yr deal with Yahoo in 2009 (the then second largest search engine) to use Bing search and got rid of a competitor in the transition. In 2015 Yahoo negotiated so that only 51% of traffic on desktop have to carry Bing ads and the minority would be whatever they want. In 2019 MS again signed with Verizon (now owners of Yahoo) so that Yahoo uses Bing and 100% of Yahoo traffic carry Bing ads. They wish they were dominating, they don't want other competitors. They just ate yahoo and got their marketshare in the end.

 

[Sony]

No, the CMA's job is ensure competition isn't significantly reduced. And the remedy you are citing with monitors for linkedin was approved by the EC. Obviously, the CMA's current leadership is not impressed with punting their responsibilities to third parties and they shouldn't be.

If the remedy is effective they should enforce it. The problem is that CMA hasn't concidered the effectiveness of the remedies package. The appeal will tell if Microsoft has a case or not. It's not a popularity contenst, it's not about impressing CMA. CMA should concider remedies that effectively adress their findings.
Which is the EC approved with remedies.

 

[Topher]

If the remedy is effective they should enforce it. The problem is that CMA hasn't concidered the effectiveness of the remedies package. The appeal will tell if Microsoft has a case or not. It's not a popularity contenst, it's not about impressing CMA. CMA should concider remedies that effectively adress their findings.
Which is the EC approved with remedies.

The CMA considered the potential effectiveness of the remedy and found it would not be. It is in the ruling. I never suggested this was a popularity contest. But yes, everything hangs on CAT's ruling on Microsoft's appeal. No one knows how that is going to go.

 

[Topher]

Just in: The outcome last time Nadella said "let us have competition", but this time in the browser/AI space:

Microsoft has no shame: Bing spit on my ‘Chrome’ search with a fake AI answer

I typed Chrome — and got an Edge ad written by “AI”

www.theverge.com

Let's take a look at what Nadella said prior to this latest development with "AI" search:

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella says he hopes Google is ready to compete when it comes to A.I. search: ‘I want people to know that we made them dance’

He added that Google is the “800-pound gorilla in this.”

fortune.com

Microsoft thinks AI can beat Google at search — CEO Satya Nadella explains why

Bing is coming for Google search in a big, AI-powered way.

www.theverge.com

Such competition.

Such innovation.

It all sounds so familiar doesn't it?

I always get a kick out of the messages Microsoft puts in Edge when you go to download a new browser.

"with the added trust of Microsoft"

Now they have ChatGPT doing it?

 

[Heisenberg007]

If the remedy is effective they should enforce it. The problem is that CMA hasn't concidered the effectiveness of the remedies package. The appeal will tell if Microsoft has a case or not. It's not a popularity contenst, it's not about impressing CMA. CMA should concider remedies that effectively adress their findings.
Which is the EC approved with remedies.

Who says that?

The CMA did measure the effectiveness of the proposed remedies and found it insufficient.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I always get a kick out of the messages Microsoft puts in Edge when you go to download a new browser.

"with the added trust of Microsoft"

Now they have ChatGPT doing it?

This is horrible and absolute shit. Buying open-source technology for billions of dollars to shit on their competitors and nudging people to download their products.

There is absolutely no grace in competition by these corporations now. All pants are off.

 

[j.k.2021]

Google now has complete monopoly on browser and search engine(they pretty much control the web) as majority of the competition in browser space uses chrome engine.Hopefully, That antitrust case in 90's was worth it.

 

[Topher]

Google now has complete monopoly on browser and search engine.Hopefully, That antitrust case in 90's was worth it.

The antitrust case had nothing to do with google search engine or chrome popularity. The fact that Internet Explorer was absolute shit had more to do with the emergence of Chrome than anything else.

 

[X-Wing]

Google now has complete monopoly on browser and search engine(they pretty much control the web) as all the competition in browser space minus Firefox uses chrome engine.Hopefully, That antitrust case in 90's was worth it.

Nope, there is also webkit. Safari (due to its presence on iPhones, iPads, etc.) has a good chunk of the market overal.

 

[IFireflyl]

Google now has complete monopoly on browser and search engine(they pretty much control the web) as all the competition in browser space minus Firefox uses chrome engine.Hopefully, That antitrust case in 90's was worth it.

Google doesn't have a complete monopoly on web browsers. Other browsers, such as Safari, Opera, and Firefox, still exist.

 

[X-Wing]

Google doesn't have a complete monopoly on web browsers. Other browsers, such as Safari, Opera, and Firefox, still exist.

He means the engine that powers the browsers. And he is right, Opera is based on Chromium, just like Chrome.
So yeah, when it comes to webbrowser you are either running webkit (Safari), chromium (Edge, Chrome, Opera, Brave, ...) or gecko (Firefox), with chromium being the most widely used.

 

[Topher]

He means the engine that powers the browsers. And he is right, Opera is based on Chromium, just like Chrome.
So yeah, when it comes to webbrowser you are either running webkit (Safari), chromium (Edge, Chrome, Opera, Brave, ...) or gecko (Firefox), with chromium being the most widely used.

Most widely used doesn't necessarily mean monopoly though. Safari has 24% market share.

https://www.similarweb.com/browsers/

 

[X-Wing]

Most widely used doesn't necessarily mean monopoly though. Safari has 24% market share.

https://www.similarweb.com/browsers/

I agree with that and this has absolutely nothing to do with the situation we had in the 90's when Microsoft was trying to lock competition out of new technology by pushing Internet Explorer.
But it is a fact that chromium is the most widely used engine out there which is causing problems but that is all way off-topic.

 

[Sneakysnake]

Wouldn't Activision have to withdraw from the UK market before the merger? If Microsoft went ahead with the deal and then withdraws Activision, wouldn't that still open them up to significant litigation for circumventing regulators to do so? If Activision has to leave of their own accord, separate of Microsoft, just to get the deal approved in Microsoft's favor, I could see that being a very hard sell to Activision's shareholders.

I mean, remember, Activision isn't in the same place as Zenimax was when Microsoft went in to buy them. Activision is still profitable with or without Microsoft. As far as I recall, they weren't even in talks of selling until Microsoft swooped in with an obscene per-share offer. They stand to gain $3b if the deal falls through to put on their already well padded balance sheet. Asking shareholders to approve a very risky move of leaving an entire market just to get deal approval sounds like it would be a harder ask than getting them to sign off on a new merger contract in July.


Aww, still butthurt for being called out on your bullshit, I see.

The still CANNOT carve out the UK. Whatever propaganda you're reading is just that, propaganda.

I swear, you're just as sad as Florian.

Microsoft might consider pulling Activision out of the UK to sidestep the CMA's ruling

Microsoft is potentially considering taking Activision out of the UK in order to not have to deal with the country blocking its acquisition.

www.vg247.com

More "propaganda" how are you still seriously thinking MS is "not allowed" to close this deal without the UK. I thought you were "keen on reading"? Again, I have no issue with ppl saying they WONT close without the UK but ppl saying they CANT are just factually incorrect. I swear it's just the ethnocentrism of some of you Brits on here thinking you guys still run the world or something. It isn't 1759 anymore, chap.

 

[harry mason 1989]

A wild alt appears with the same script

 

[Topher]

Microsoft might consider pulling Activision out of the UK to sidestep the CMA's ruling

Microsoft is potentially considering taking Activision out of the UK in order to not have to deal with the country blocking its acquisition.

www.vg247.com

More "propaganda" how are you still seriously thinking MS is "not allowed" to close this deal without the UK. I thought you were "keen on reading"? Again, I have no issue with ppl saying they WONT close without the UK but ppl saying they CANT are just factually incorrect. I swear it's just the ethnocentrism of some of you Brits on here thinking you guys still run the world or something. It isn't 1759 anymore, chap.

The CMA has issued an interim order prohibiting Microsoft from investing or acquiring ABK. That's pretty much the definition of "not allowed".

 

[poppabk]

Most widely used doesn't necessarily mean monopoly though. Safari has 24% market share.

https://www.similarweb.com/browsers/

The irony.

 

[Dick Jones]

The CMA has issued an interim order prohibiting Microsoft from investing or acquiring ABK. That's pretty much the definition of "not allowed".

Yeah, but maybe English isn't the first language of the CMA and they didn't mean that

 

[Topher]

The irony.

What irony?

 

[FlyyGOD]

Deals outside of monopoly gets approved, while those on monopoly territory gets blocked. Its 101 regulation.
These people need to learn what a monopoly is.

How is buying Activision a monopoly? Microsoft buying Activision isn't going to put them at the top in the gaming market.

 

[poppabk]

What irony?

That apple bundles safari with its OS and makes it hard to use other browsers especially on iphone although I think they have made improvements to that.

 

[GHG]

That apple bundles safari with its OS and makes it hard to use other browsers especially on iphone although I think they have made improvements to that.

As someone who has an ipad and has very recent experience with mac, this is bullshit.

They don't make it difficult for you to use other browsers at all. All it takes is a download and install.