Support NeoGAF

[ToadMan]

Doesn't this kinda refute what MS said. So how would they counter this if FTC bring this up? That isn't a bullet proof statement. It got a lot of holes in it..

I think as was mentioned for Zenimax the EC didn’t insist on any remedies. So what MS said in response, is the only counter - “we made no contract so fool on you for believing what we said”

But the “not insisting” by the EU regulator was on the basis of the reasonable conduct of MS in its submission to the EC and its business practices as a whole.

Then MS ignored what they’d said to the EC almost immediately.

Can’t do anything about that now - but no one knew MS would be trying to buy ABK just 2 years later. Karma is a bitch and now none of the regulators will take MS’s word at face value. Every “t” crossed etc.

What’s amusing is MS are using near identical language in this submission for ABK as they used for Zeni- “it makes no sense for us to do this and this is a different scenario really!”

So far the regulators are once bitten twice shy…hence the contract gymnastics MS are doing now - their word won’t be enough.

 

[8BiTw0LF]

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/607003_d09412_-_order_on_motion_of_sony_interactive_entertainment_llc_to_quash_or_limit_subpoena_duces_tecum.pdf

Defeat for Sony as FTC judge largely rejects its motion to quash Microsoft's subpoena in Activision Blizzard merger case

The staff of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has just uploaded an order (PDF) by the agency's Chief (and only) Administrative Law Judge ...

www.fosspatents.com

Defeat for Sony as FTC judge largely rejects its motion to quash Microsoft's subpoena in Activision Blizzard merger case​

The staff of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has just uploaded an order (PDF) by the agency's Chief (and only) Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) D. Michael Chappell dated February 23, 2023. The order addresses Sony's motion to quash or limit Microsoft's subpoena in the FTC's in-house adjudicative proceeding concerning the acquisition of Activision Blizzard King. For the most part it's a defeat for the PlayStation maker that makes it look absurd that Sony had accused Microsoft of "obvious harassment" (in the form of discovery requests):

• Sony's request to limit custodians (people whose documents must be produced) is denied even with respect to a Sony in-house antitrust counsel. Also, Sony had argued that searching a Japanese executive's files would be unduly burdensome because those documents are in Japanese, and that didn't persuade the judge either.
• Judge Chappell mentions that according to Sony, Microsoft would have been willing to drop one of those custodians from the list if the two parties had reached an agreement on the scope of discovery through negotiations. But in the absence of such an agreement, Judge Chappell decided that part against Sony. It's possible that not only in that respect but also in others, Sony could have obtained a better result through an agreement with Microsoft.
• Sony's requests to quash document requests are largely denied.
• The only somewhat meaningful win for Sony is that various of Microsoft's document requests are limited to the time period from January 1, 2019 to present (as opposed to the last ten years). However, that period should really be sufficient for Microsoft's lawyers to find material that strengthens their defenses (such as with respect to the importance of Call of Duty).
• Judge Chappell also granted Sony's request to quash document request 13, which related to performance reviews of Jim Ryan and those directly reporting to him. On Feburary 17 I already wrote about that one:
  

  Some narrowing of Microsoft's subpoena may happen. For example, Sony objects to Microsoft's request for access to performance reviews for the relevant Sony executives. While Microsoft is right that courts have decided that type of request in different ways, there is no guarantee that the FTC's Chief (and presently only) Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) D. Michael Chappell will require the production of such documents here.

  As you can see, I correctly identified the most ambitious discovery request at issue.
  It was in this context that Sony alleged "obvious harassment", but the fact that its motion as a whole largely failed shows that Sony exaggerated.
• A footnote mentions that Judge Chappell also denied Sony's motion for leave to file a reply brief in support of its motion. Judge Chappell did not see anything in the proposed reply brief that couldn't have been raised in the original motion.

Sony knows that its opposition to Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard King may--as I wrote in January--have unintended consequences.
In other news related to this merger, the European Commission has extended the deadline by another ten working days until April 25, 2023. As a result, decisions are now scheduled for the last week of April in three jurisdiction: the EU (25th), UK (26th), and New Zealand (28th). I've updated my timeline chart:

 

[reksveks]

Microsoft Corp. and Activision Blizzard Inc. met with the UK's antitrust watchdog this week to hash out proposals over concerns their $69 billion deal would hamper competition in the video game industry, according to people familiar with the discussions, as global regulators step up their scrutiny of the controversial deal.

Lawyers for Microsoft attended a private hearing with the Competition and Markets Authority in London on Monday to discuss the regulator's provisional findings and assess the feasibility of proposed remedies, said the people, who asked not to be named discussing a confidential matter.

Microsoft also said it's willing to pay a third-party monitor to oversee their compliance, the people said, a measure designed to relieve the CMA from having to devote resources to make sure the tech giant follows through on its promises.

Spokespeople at Microsoft and CMA declined to comment. Activision Blizzard separately met with the CMA on Wednesday on the proposals. A further hearing with Sony Corp., the main opponent to the deal, is scheduled for next week, the people said.

The London meetings were led by the case's independent inquiry group, with support from the case team, said the people. The CMA will publish its final decision on the merger on April 26.

The companies plan to submit a revised proposals to EU authorities this week following the closed-door discussions, the people said.

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...woos-uk-watchdog-to-solve-activisiondeal-rift

Paying for a third party trust/monitor is something that MS and others have done before, they did it for LinkedIn. EC basically gets to choose the person in charge and then MS/companies basically pay the wages and expenses.

 

[Heisenberg007]

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/607003_d09412_-_order_on_motion_of_sony_interactive_entertainment_llc_to_quash_or_limit_subpoena_duces_tecum.pdf

Defeat for Sony as FTC judge largely rejects its motion to quash Microsoft's subpoena in Activision Blizzard merger case

The staff of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has just uploaded an order (PDF) by the agency's Chief (and only) Administrative Law Judge ...

www.fosspatents.com

Defeat for Sony as FTC judge largely rejects its motion to quash Microsoft's subpoena in Activision Blizzard merger case​

The staff of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has just uploaded an order (PDF) by the agency's Chief (and only) Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) D. Michael Chappell dated February 23, 2023. The order addresses Sony's motion to quash or limit Microsoft's subpoena in the FTC's in-house adjudicative proceeding concerning the acquisition of Activision Blizzard King. For the most part it's a defeat for the PlayStation maker that makes it look absurd that Sony had accused Microsoft of "obvious harassment" (in the form of discovery requests):

• Sony's request to limit custodians (people whose documents must be produced) is denied even with respect to a Sony in-house antitrust counsel. Also, Sony had argued that searching a Japanese executive's files would be unduly burdensome because those documents are in Japanese, and that didn't persuade the judge either.
• Judge Chappell mentions that according to Sony, Microsoft would have been willing to drop one of those custodians from the list if the two parties had reached an agreement on the scope of discovery through negotiations. But in the absence of such an agreement, Judge Chappell decided that part against Sony. It's possible that not only in that respect but also in others, Sony could have obtained a better result through an agreement with Microsoft.
• Sony's requests to quash document requests are largely denied.
• The only somewhat meaningful win for Sony is that various of Microsoft's document requests are limited to the time period from January 1, 2019 to present (as opposed to the last ten years). However, that period should really be sufficient for Microsoft's lawyers to find material that strengthens their defenses (such as with respect to the importance of Call of Duty).
• Judge Chappell also granted Sony's request to quash document request 13, which related to performance reviews of Jim Ryan and those directly reporting to him. On Feburary 17 I already wrote about that one:
  
  As you can see, I correctly identified the most ambitious discovery request at issue.
  It was in this context that Sony alleged "obvious harassment", but the fact that its motion as a whole largely failed shows that Sony exaggerated.
• A footnote mentions that Judge Chappell also denied Sony's motion for leave to file a reply brief in support of its motion. Judge Chappell did not see anything in the proposed reply brief that couldn't have been raised in the original motion.

Sony knows that its opposition to Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard King may--as I wrote in January--have unintended consequences.
In other news related to this merger, the European Commission has extended the deadline by another ten working days until April 25, 2023. As a result, decisions are now scheduled for the last week of April in three jurisdiction: the EU (25th), UK (26th), and New Zealand (28th). I've updated my timeline chart:

That's an (unsurprisingly) clickbaity and lopsided headline by Foss Patents, when the real situation is much more of a mixed bag for both companies and looks like this:

 

[Topher]

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/607003_d09412_-_order_on_motion_of_sony_interactive_entertainment_llc_to_quash_or_limit_subpoena_duces_tecum.pdf

Defeat for Sony as FTC judge largely rejects its motion to quash Microsoft's subpoena in Activision Blizzard merger case

The staff of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has just uploaded an order (PDF) by the agency's Chief (and only) Administrative Law Judge ...

www.fosspatents.com

Defeat for Sony as FTC judge largely rejects its motion to quash Microsoft's subpoena in Activision Blizzard merger case​

The staff of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has just uploaded an order (PDF) by the agency's Chief (and only) Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) D. Michael Chappell dated February 23, 2023. The order addresses Sony's motion to quash or limit Microsoft's subpoena in the FTC's in-house adjudicative proceeding concerning the acquisition of Activision Blizzard King. For the most part it's a defeat for the PlayStation maker that makes it look absurd that Sony had accused Microsoft of "obvious harassment" (in the form of discovery requests):

• Sony's request to limit custodians (people whose documents must be produced) is denied even with respect to a Sony in-house antitrust counsel. Also, Sony had argued that searching a Japanese executive's files would be unduly burdensome because those documents are in Japanese, and that didn't persuade the judge either.
• Judge Chappell mentions that according to Sony, Microsoft would have been willing to drop one of those custodians from the list if the two parties had reached an agreement on the scope of discovery through negotiations. But in the absence of such an agreement, Judge Chappell decided that part against Sony. It's possible that not only in that respect but also in others, Sony could have obtained a better result through an agreement with Microsoft.
• Sony's requests to quash document requests are largely denied.
• The only somewhat meaningful win for Sony is that various of Microsoft's document requests are limited to the time period from January 1, 2019 to present (as opposed to the last ten years). However, that period should really be sufficient for Microsoft's lawyers to find material that strengthens their defenses (such as with respect to the importance of Call of Duty).
• Judge Chappell also granted Sony's request to quash document request 13, which related to performance reviews of Jim Ryan and those directly reporting to him. On Feburary 17 I already wrote about that one:
  
  As you can see, I correctly identified the most ambitious discovery request at issue.
  It was in this context that Sony alleged "obvious harassment", but the fact that its motion as a whole largely failed shows that Sony exaggerated.
• A footnote mentions that Judge Chappell also denied Sony's motion for leave to file a reply brief in support of its motion. Judge Chappell did not see anything in the proposed reply brief that couldn't have been raised in the original motion.

Sony knows that its opposition to Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard King may--as I wrote in January--have unintended consequences.
In other news related to this merger, the European Commission has extended the deadline by another ten working days until April 25, 2023. As a result, decisions are now scheduled for the last week of April in three jurisdiction: the EU (25th), UK (26th), and New Zealand (28th). I've updated my timeline chart:

This guy patting himself on the back is the same guy I quoted earlier who was saying all these documents would be available to the public and he was dead wrong.

Here he is writing clickbait. Most of Sony's motions were granted.

 

[Jim Ryan other Clone]

I come to this thread to read some good delusional people opinions and it's crazy how people can bend and shape reality just to make their delusions into facts.

 

[MasterCornholio]

What would happen if Microsoft just ignores the CMA?

It's probably something they won't do but I'm just curious about the consequences.

 

[The_Mike]

https://www.eurogamer.net/us-judge-...al-sony-documents-on-activision-blizzard-deal

Has thia been posted?

 

[Sanepar]

What would happen if Microsoft just ignores the CMA?

It's probably something they won't do but I'm just curious about the consequences.

They would not be able to sell abk games and gamepass at UK.

 

[MasterCornholio]

They would not be able to sell abk games and gamepass at UK.

That may not be that bad for them depending on how badly they want COD.

 

[Topher]

https://www.eurogamer.net/us-judge-...al-sony-documents-on-activision-blizzard-deal

Has thia been posted?

A number of times

 

[Astray]

What would happen if Microsoft just ignores the CMA?

It's probably something they won't do but I'm just curious about the consequences.

Then all their business interests in the UK are put on ice. And it's not just them selling products and services, but they also have subsidiaries there too like Rare, Playground and Ninja Theory.

 

[Topher]

That may not be that bad for them depending on how badly they want COD.

Microsoft isn't going to permanently vacate the UK market for COD, dude.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Then all their business interests in the UK are put on ice. And it's not just them selling products and services, but they also have subsidiaries there too like Rare, Playground and Ninja Theory.

OK that's a lot worse than what Sanepar said especially since the UK is Xboxs second largest market.

 

[Topher]

Then all their business interests in the UK are put on ice. And it's not just them selling products and services, but they also have subsidiaries there too like Rare, Playground and Ninja Theory.

And a couple of Azure data centers

 

[MasterCornholio]

Microsoft isn't going to permanently vacate the UK market for COD, dude.

That's not what Sanepar said.

 

[Astray]

OK that's a lot worse than what Sanepar said especially since the UK is Xboxs second largest market.

Even if it's not explicitly prohibited to do business in the UK, the regulators will likely do a lot to make their lives hell, including fucking with far bigger tickets than Xbox, like Azure and Office 365.

 

[Topher]

That's not what Sanepar said.

Sanepar understated the impact massively. Doesn't matter. MS isn't going to test those waters.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Sanepar understated the impact massively

What he said was bad but it might be something they are willing to lose. Getting booted from the UK is a whole different story.

 

[The_Mike]

Then all their business interests in the UK are put on ice. And it's not just them selling products and services, but they also have subsidiaries there too like Rare, Playground and Ninja Theory.

"We don't want Microsoft to buy Activision Blizzard because we fear they exclude customers, so instead will we block the games instead and exclude it for every UK citizen"

 

[MasterCornholio]

"We don't want Microsoft to buy Activision Blizzard because we fear they exclude customers, so instead will we block the games instead and exclude it for every UK citizen"

It would be Microsoft that would be doing that. The CMA did give them options.

 

[Astray]

"We don't want Microsoft to buy Activision Blizzard because we fear they exclude customers, so instead will we block the games instead and exclude it for every UK citizen"

Not abiding by regulator decisions is a complete no-no in any country, and it's not meant to be a fun process either. Scrutiny is never fun even if you do get what you want at the end.

 

[The_Mike]

It would be Microsoft that would be doing that. The CMA did give them options.

So if I say "if you walk near me on the sidewalk then I smack your ass", and you continue to go there so I smack you, then it's you who did that?

 

[Astray]

Antitrust law and enforcement is not something that is approachable by laymen like us btw, and it involves a lot of things that are initially seen as counter-intuitive and against common sense.

So it's entirely understandable to me why people don't vibe with the whole process.

 

[MasterCornholio]

So if I say "if you walk near me on the site walk then I smack your ass", and you continue to go there so I smack you, then it's you who did that?

You would have to insert your penis first for that to be an issue.

Please use a different example.

 

[Topher]

What he said was bad but it might be something they are willing to lose. Getting booted from the UK is a whole different story.

Microsoft would be breaking UK law.

 

[Brucey]

Point #5.

Microsoft says that it is implausible that it will hit those numbers, so highly unlikely they'll ever make these games exclusive (because they won't hit those numbers in the first place).

Then Microsoft made those games exclusives 2 days later. How did an "implausible" scenario become possible in only 2 days?

On Day 1 post acquisition they shipped an extra 10k consoles to a warehouse. On Day 2 they shipped 20k consoles. They then extrapolated that out to 5 years and said yes, console sales are going to go through the roof! Let's go exclusive....

Or alternatively, with Bid Daddy Microsoft's effectively unlimited cash reserves, they said screw profitability, let's do what we always do and embrace, extend and extinguish.

 

[The_Mike]

You would have to insert your penis first for that to be an issue.

Please try again.

Where have Spencer used his penis in this deal in context to your previous post?

 

[Topher]

Where have Spencer used his penis in this deal in context to your previous post?

We need an expert to answer that. adamsapple ?

 

[nikolino840]

The court hearing will in all likelihood be public - probably good to fall asleep to.

But the data used in the hearing will be confidential - so there’ll be a lot of “refer to doc X” and redacts and whatever.

But we may get some leaks - maybe some smeary intentional ones …

This is the original confidentiality order
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ft...-governing-confidential-material-public_0.pdf

And the important bit :

7. Confidential material shall be disclosed only to: (a) the Administrative Law Judge presiding over this proceeding, personnel assisting the Administrative Law Judge, the Commission and its employees, and personnel retained by the Commission as experts or consultants for this proceeding; (b) judges and other court personnel of any court having jurisdiction over any appellate proceedings involving this matter; (c) outside counsel of record for any respondent, their associated attorneys and other employees of their law firm(s), provided they are not employees of a respondent; (d) anyone retained to assist outside counsel in the preparation or hearing of this proceeding including consultants, provided they are not affiliated in any way with a respondent and have signed an agreement to abide by the terms of the protective order; and (e) any witness or deponent who may have authored or received the information in question.

Need to hire Assange

 

[Brucey]

Need to hire Assange

He shows up virtually from Russia.

Nope, got confused with Snowden lol.

 

[Sanepar]

What he said was bad but it might be something they are willing to lose. Getting booted from the UK is a whole different story.

How can u afford to lose your second biggest market?

 

[Brucey]

How can u afford to lose your second biggest market?

USA or bust.

 

[Draugoth]

Sony now has to provide:

• All licensing agreements with 3rd parties since 2019
• Info on Jim Ryan's ABK declaration from Dec 22
• Their lawyer's external comms
• Docs from execs of Finance and Global Strategy

 

[crunchyBiscuits]

Hmm.. wonder how this is gonna play out

 

[lh032]

 

[Slothbeing1209]

Nice

 

[jm89]

Isn't it one of ABKs requirment for the CMA to approve? I read it a while back, can't be asked to dig it out though.

 

[skit_data]

I know it’s probably because they’re one of the major opponents regarding this deal but I still don’t see the logic behind Sony having to provide data requested by Microsoft in this context. Seems a bit backwards. I assume FTC already has data on MS third party deals, only it’s not publically available.

 

[NickFire]

This is a discovery order. That’s it. We don’t even get good dirt unless someone messes up or leaks. I hope we get the dirt, but probably won’t unless the case goes to trial. Discovery orders don’t need separate threads.

 

[Topher]

This is a discovery order. That’s it. We don’t even get good dirt unless someone messes up or leaks. I hope we get the dirt, but probably won’t unless the case goes to trial. Discovery orders don’t need separate threads.

Protective order of confidential documents:

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ft...-governing-confidential-material-public_0.pdf

 

[Elios83]

This will end up being pointless as everything will be decided by CMA on April 26th.

 

[Ozzie666]

Why does Sony feel like the victim here suddenly.

 

[SSfox]

Sony rn:

 

[Punished Miku]

Meanwhile at Sony:

 

[Astray]

Isn't it one of ABKs requirment for the CMA to approve? I read it a while back, can't be asked to dig it out though.

Deal get cancelled if one of the big 3 regulators says no, and MSFT is liable for the penalty fee as it stands when the refusal comes in.

 

[Elios83]

Isn't it one of ABKs requirment for the CMA to approve? I read it a while back, can't be asked to dig it out though.

If the CMA blocks the deal is dead regardless, we would see Microsoft announcing withdrawal blaming regulators who couldn't see the amazing benefits of the acquisition and the evil Sony who misguided them

 

[twilo99]

Juicy..

 

[Nautilus]

 

[Forsythia]

Could be interesting, but it could also be a complete nothingburger. We'll see.