Edgelord79
Gold Member
Sorry I meant I’ll just get it on the platform it’s on.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Axios (Stephen Totilo) Lawyers: Email proves Microsoft’s ABK bid is designed to elimination (Update: MS claims it was a "thought experiment")
Edgelord79
Gold Member
How are you 100% sure?
Edgelord79
Gold Member
I think people are grossly underestimating Microsoft’s chances in appeals court objectively with this specific decision. Read the documents. Then take a look at whom they’ve hired:
https://www.monckton.com/barrister/daniel-beard-kc/
Put down your warrior swords for just one minute lol.
https://www.monckton.com/barrister/daniel-beard-kc/
Put down your warrior swords for just one minute lol.
Bo_Hazem
Banned
There is a limit to what a lawyer can do at the end of the day. It's not on the lawyer if it fails, it's just so obviously an inadequate case to defend.
Edgelord79
Gold Member
Inadequate in what way? Do you mean the FCA and CMA defence?
Last edited:
Bumblebeetuna
Gold Member
GHG
Gold Member
If a guy wants to jerry-rig together a submarine and people agree for him to charge them $250,000 a head to take them down to the depths of the sea then why stop it? Let it be.
Bo_Hazem
Banned
Microsoft losing case, nothing much to defend as they exposed themselves in all fronts.
Edgelord79
Gold Member
Ya could definitely happen. I’m 50-50 on it.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
I find it more fascinating that people still think that CMA can stop this deal - even FTC doesn't think so (to a point where they went after the injunction unprepared and completely discarding their own stalling tactics) and they - despite being highly incompetent - have access to more information in regards of the deal than regulars here. By and large, CMA is not a threat anymore. And FTC is burying their own grave.
Though some reactions to this hearing makes me think that some folks like in Spider-man Multiverse
Last edited:
We are talking about the 2019 email that gave reason to open this thread. I understand that you recognize how stupid this thread has become after its content was discovered.
Regarding the 2021 email, the reality is that it is a hot response after seeing how Nvidia put its games on GForce without any permission.
The reality for the judge is that MS already has an agreement with Nvidia and that those Zenimax games and also those from XGS are and will continue to reach Nvidia GForce and other competing platforms.
Edgelord79
Gold Member
No they don’t have the legal authority to stop it if the courts don’t agree, however they can make it so difficult that it would make it unfeasible for Microsoft to close the deal as they couldn’t do business in those regions with their purchase.I find it more fascinating that people still think that CMA can stop this deal - even FTC doesn't think so (to a point where they went after the injunction unprepared and completely discarding their own stalling tactics) and they - despite being highly incompetent - have access to more information in regards of the deal than regulars here. By and large, CMA is not a threat anymore. And FTC is burying their own grave.
Though some reactions to this hearing makes me think that some folks like in Spider-man Multiverse
Last edited:
drganon
Member
I find it fascinating you took the time to type this garbage.I find it more fascinating that people still think that CMA can stop this deal - even FTC doesn't think so (to a point where they went after the injunction unprepared and completely discarding their own stalling tactics) and they - despite being highly incompetent - have access to more information in regards of the deal than regulars here. By and large, CMA is not a threat anymore. And FTC is burying their own grave.
Though some reactions to this hearing makes me think that some folks like in Spider-man Multiverse
Edgelord79
Gold Member
Meant to post this here:
Our narratives don’t matter. All the matters is what is said in court and how it’s interpreted by the judge in a legal sense.
Remember we wouldn’t be here if the CMA and FTC decision wasn’t based in such a lack of fundamental knowledge in how the industry worked. Yes or no doesn’t matter unless it’s backed up with a really good argument legally. Plenty of analysts have expressed concerns on how the regulators came to the decision as opposed to the decision itself. Basically the FTC decision process in my opinion was flawed which opens the door quite a bit for an appeal. Not necessarily that the decision was wrong.
Our narratives don’t matter. All the matters is what is said in court and how it’s interpreted by the judge in a legal sense.
Remember we wouldn’t be here if the CMA and FTC decision wasn’t based in such a lack of fundamental knowledge in how the industry worked. Yes or no doesn’t matter unless it’s backed up with a really good argument legally. Plenty of analysts have expressed concerns on how the regulators came to the decision as opposed to the decision itself. Basically the FTC decision process in my opinion was flawed which opens the door quite a bit for an appeal. Not necessarily that the decision was wrong.
The 2019 email was applicable for at least 2 years.
What's a "hot response"? They had seen nvidia putting games on Geforce now in April 2020 which was when XGS asked to remove their games. Are you making things up as you go along?
The March 2021 email was when they closed on Zenimax and asked to remove the remaining games that Bethesda hadn't already. The judge knows they have an agreement but the argument is that they can unilaterally remove it again and it only happened to appease regulators after they discovered they were moving to block it.
Last edited:
Bernardougf
Gold Member
I find it more fascinating that people still think that CMA can stop this deal - even FTC doesn't think so (to a point where they went after the injunction unprepared and completely discarding their own stalling tactics) and they - despite being highly incompetent - have access to more information in regards of the deal than regulars here. By and large, CMA is not a threat anymore. And FTC is burying their own grave.
Though some reactions to this hearing makes me think that some folks like in Spider-man Multiverse
Bernardougf
Gold Member
Lets wait and see the explanation to why the fuck this injunction case in the US cort by the FTC has any direct effect on the UK CAT ruling and subsequent new CMA avaliation (if it comes to that) ... it should be fascinating Im sure
Last edited:
GHG
Gold Member
I find it more fascinating that people still think that CMA can stop this deal - even FTC doesn't think so (to a point where they went after the injunction unprepared and completely discarding their own stalling tactics) and they - despite being highly incompetent - have access to more information in regards of the deal than regulars here. By and large, CMA is not a threat anymore. And FTC is burying their own grave.
Though some reactions to this hearing makes me think that some folks like in Spider-man Multiverse
If the CMA are "not a threat" and can't stop the deal then why are Microsoft appealing to the CAT then? It would be a grand waste of time and energy to appeal a decision that doesn't matter don't you think?
Last edited:
Stare-Bear
Banned
Every day Microsoft is contradicting themselves. I wish they were just honest and said, we want to eliminate all the competition, the quickest and more importantly, easiest way possible.
And it’s really not in our best interest.
And it’s really not in our best interest.
Kokoloko85
Member
A thief in court tries to steal something, fails. Evidence and notes show he made a plan for the robbery…. Nah bro it was just a thought experiment.
Last edited:
Fuz
Banned
Seriously guys, why is someone even here surprised?
en.wikipedia.org
Embrace, extend, and extinguish - Wikipedia
YeulEmeralda
Linux User
Lawyers are irrelevant when you can buy senators.
I repeat, we are talking about the email that gives rise to this thread with 23 pages.
Message distorted by the lawyer gamer: "MS wants to remove PS from the market"
Reality: "We are not going to put our first party games on another competing platform"
You can create the narrative you want or change the direction of the conversation. The reality is that this thread has been stupid and nonsense.
On the other hand. The judge can see many things in those 2 emails and interpret them in many ways. The reality is that in the end in these cases the judges tend to rely on the facts, FACTS. The only fact here is that MS has an agreement with Nvidia and other platforms and their games are and will continue to come. Contracts with standard clauses, common in commercial contracts that some want to make believe that they are special and that NVidia, other competitors, the EU etc. are stupid and that they have been fooled by MS.
I don't know what the final ruling will be. Among other things because there are still hearings from experts and financial reports. we have not heard the redacted statements either. But I am clear that the judge's question to P. Spencer ("promise you're going to release COD on PS5?") is significant about what she thinks of those emails. Email that, on the other hand, were not taken into account by the same judge in the "gamer lawsuit".
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Contracts like the one for Indiana Jones? MS is trying as much as possible to claim plausible deniability more than providing any long standing legally binding promise of anything.
The memo was about intent on a strategy they started: MS wanted to upend the console model to something only they could withstand thanks to their immense cash reserves/size compared to the competitors; they know big third party publishers would not jump with both feet on GamePass (hurts their traditional model too) without buying them up so they started to do that… making games exclusives or keeping on ruining the games’ perceived value would be additional levers they can use with competitors with less cash than them (especially cash that does not come from gaming).
What you are cheering on is a giant company trying to test what they can get away with when they go scorched earth on a market to dominate it even if they destroy it and their competitions alongside it in the process … on top of it for the “pissing on you but telling you it is raining” they started saying they were doing it to protect gaming from Tencent, Amazon, Google, and Disney…
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
The way that some of the usual suspects were defending this is symptomatic of a wider societal change maybe… they think they can get away with or that is ok to reason like this:
“No, it is false, there are no e-mails, fake suit”
“Ok there are e-mails, but nobody knows what they say, they are redacted and the lawyers are lying!”
“Ok, we know what they say from reporters, but they do not mean what you think they mean else MS would comment about it!”
“OK MS is acknowledging those e-mails but it does not matter since they are from 2019”
“OK, they describe a scenario but it does not matter because it is from before they actually started executing it” (yes, people were actually saying this with a straight face, this is how stupid they think you are)
“OK, it was all a thought experiment, stop pushing against Good Guy Phil”…
Then it became a random selection of all those statements with various attempts at derailing the thread with SonyToo(TM) grasping at straws.
Last edited:
Bull crap. The world actually existed before you were born. Look up AT&T.
Breakup of the Bell System - Wikipedia
Antitrust laws and standard oil.
United States antitrust law - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Ok, so they are not even innovating as much as the other robber barons of the dayBull crap. The world actually existed before you were born. Look up AT&T.
Breakup of the Bell System - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
. Well the EEE tactic is named after them, so you get the points for that one .
JackMcGunns
Member
What was the goal of wanting to pay to keep Starfield away from other platforms?
What was the goal of Sony purchasing Bungie? What is Sony's goal when they prohibit games from coming to Xbox, just PlayStation and PC? The goal is the same, to hurt the competition, to hurt Xbox and in the best case scenario, make Xbox leave the console space like they did to Sega. OMG, did Sony do it first? where was the FTC then? This is such a stupid argument.