The FTC is fighting an uphill battle, given that it lost the lower-court fight and that the EU and Britain have signed off on the deal.
I mean, the lower court fight makes it an uphill battle, sure -- they're appealing a ruling. But the EU and UK regulatory positions aren't going to be an input to US courts -- that doesn't make it any harder to get US courts to agree to block it.
They did kind of matter to US proceedings purely on the fact that if they hadn't cleared regulatory issues elsewhere, the deal wouldn't have already happened.
The fact that the deal already happened will make it substantially more difficult to succeed, because now you don't have to stop a deal; you have to unravel an already completed one.
Look, I get it, Microsoft buying Actiblizz is bad for competition and growth, but any argument saying its a monopoly is plainly false. Microsoft+Actiblizz doesnt even make up half of the available content in the gaming world, and im not counting steam trash or vis novels. In the gaming world a title by an idie studio could come out of nowhere and outperform any game put forth by the big 6 (now 5) companies.
This is a straw man. Nobody is saying they're a monopoly. They're saying Microsoft has a history of anti competitive behavior.
If this is a strawman, where is the anti-competitive behaviour in this deal?
A history of anti-competitive choices should not be resolved by undoing some random, unrelated choice. The only reason they would have to block Microsoft's acquisition is if it was anti-competitive.
in what way is buying a competitor not inherently anti-competitive?
If someone has a history of anti-competitive behavior, preventing them from buying competitors is perfectly logical
In the entertainment industry, there are not a lot of real competitors, if any.
I can't think of any scenario where Microsoft makes something, and any reasonable human would think "well, it's too bad Activision Blizzard isn't still making games on their own, it sure would have increased the quality of "
Yes, it's literally a straw man. OP constructed an argument (Microsoft is a monopoly) that was not present in any comments nor the article, and then attacked that.
NOT EVEN HALF?? That's your bar??? Imagine a single other industry that's that monopolized Jesus, even internet companies have like 3 options and are each horrendous with their 33%
Time to split Microsoft up
Antitrust is not a word our gov knows anymore
I mean, the lower court fight makes it an uphill battle, sure -- they're appealing a ruling. But the EU and UK regulatory positions aren't going to be an input to US courts -- that doesn't make it any harder to get US courts to agree to block it.
They did kind of matter to US proceedings purely on the fact that if they hadn't cleared regulatory issues elsewhere, the deal wouldn't have already happened.
The fact that the deal already happened will make it substantially more difficult to succeed, because now you don't have to stop a deal; you have to unravel an already completed one.
Look, I get it, Microsoft buying Actiblizz is bad for competition and growth, but any argument saying its a monopoly is plainly false. Microsoft+Actiblizz doesnt even make up half of the available content in the gaming world, and im not counting steam trash or vis novels. In the gaming world a title by an idie studio could come out of nowhere and outperform any game put forth by the big 6 (now 5) companies.
This is a straw man. Nobody is saying they're a monopoly. They're saying Microsoft has a history of anti competitive behavior.
If this is a strawman, where is the anti-competitive behaviour in this deal?
A history of anti-competitive choices should not be resolved by undoing some random, unrelated choice. The only reason they would have to block Microsoft's acquisition is if it was anti-competitive.
in what way is buying a competitor not inherently anti-competitive?
If someone has a history of anti-competitive behavior, preventing them from buying competitors is perfectly logical
In the entertainment industry, there are not a lot of real competitors, if any.
I can't think of any scenario where Microsoft makes something, and any reasonable human would think "well, it's too bad Activision Blizzard isn't still making games on their own, it sure would have increased the quality of "
Yes, it's literally a straw man. OP constructed an argument (Microsoft is a monopoly) that was not present in any comments nor the article, and then attacked that.
NOT EVEN HALF?? That's your bar??? Imagine a single other industry that's that monopolized Jesus, even internet companies have like 3 options and are each horrendous with their 33%