FTC Sues Microsoft To Block $69 Billion Activision Blizzard Acquisition (washingtonpost.com) 43
The Federal Trade Commission on Thursday sued to block Microsoft's $69 billion acquisition of the video game publisher Activision Blizzard, charging that the massive deal would allow the Washington tech giant to suppress its competitors in gaming. Washington Post: The lawsuit represents the FTC's most significant effort to rein in consolidation in the tech industry since prominent tech critic Lina Khan (D) became the commission's chair and was expected to usher in a new era of antitrust enforcement characterized by a willingness to bring cases in court rather than pursue settlements with companies.
The FTC lawsuit against Microsoft could foil the company's ambitions to become a heavier hitter in gaming frontiers. Activision is the owner of massively popular titles like "Candy Crush" and "Call of Duty," and its acquisition could bolster Microsoft in its competition with Japanese console makers Nintendo and Sony. The commission voted on Thursday on a party-line vote to issue the lawsuit in administrative court, with the three Democrats in favor of the complaint and one Republican against it.
The FTC lawsuit against Microsoft could foil the company's ambitions to become a heavier hitter in gaming frontiers. Activision is the owner of massively popular titles like "Candy Crush" and "Call of Duty," and its acquisition could bolster Microsoft in its competition with Japanese console makers Nintendo and Sony. The commission voted on Thursday on a party-line vote to issue the lawsuit in administrative court, with the three Democrats in favor of the complaint and one Republican against it.
Not enough (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Sad but true. John Boehner pretty much admitted that campaign donations (bribes) work.
Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Finally (Score:5, Interesting)
Will the FTC sue Nintendo and Sony for doing the same to Microsoft?
Maybe they can force them to release all those Playstation-only games on Xbox.
Re: (Score:3)
Big corporations screw the smaller businesses out of existence and enjoy monopolies while going back on their "sworn" testimonies.
Ban all mega mergers
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Will the FTC sue Nintendo and Sony for doing the same to Microsoft?
Of course not. Because the FTC doesn't give a rat's ass about "monopoly" here (as if buying one out of many gaming companies would give MS a monopoly). This is a big, honkin' virtue signal. And if this stands, when Nintendo or Sony or someone like them swoop in and buy Activision instead, nary a peep will be raised by the very same crew at the FTC.
Re:Finally (Score:4, Insightful)
virtue signal
Can you people construct arguments that don't involve pleas to emotion and other related bullshit? How is a trillion dollar company buying an independent publisher of widely popular games a positive for competition, customer choice, or any related metric? And how, for fucks's sake, is this "signaling virtue"? Nintendo is famously single-platform when it comes to their games. You don't really have a point there at all, since they publish most of the biggest games on their console. Sony has made big acquisitions before, but none of them are even close to the scale of this (especially when you consider that Microsoft just bought Bethesda not too long ago).
Seriously, is your brain so rotted by the conservative fear-mongering that you would willingly fight FOR corporate conglomeration?
Re: (Score:2)
virtue signal
Can you people construct arguments that don't involve pleas to emotion and other related bullshit? How is a trillion dollar company buying an independent publisher of widely popular games a positive for competition, customer choice, or any related metric? And how, for fucks's sake, is this "signaling virtue"? Nintendo is famously single-platform when it comes to their games. You don't really have a point there at all, since they publish most of the biggest games on their console. Sony has made big acquisitions before, but none of them are even close to the scale of this (especially when you consider that Microsoft just bought Bethesda not too long ago).
Seriously, is your brain so rotted by the conservative fear-mongering that you would willingly fight FOR corporate conglomeration?
LOL, buying Activision isn't going to do jack shit to hurt competition. There are too many PC game makers for that to happen with this purchase.
Second, Activision is happily offering their company for sale. Just who would you allow to buy them if someone made you King of Commerce?
Re: (Score:2)
> Second, Activision is happily offering their company for sale. Just who would you allow to buy them if someone made you King of Commerce?
Someone who isn't a competitor trying to build a monopoly position in the marketplace, dipshit.,
Re: (Score:2)
Activision is happily offering their company for sale. Just who would you allow to buy them if someone made you King of Commerce?
There's no reason why anyone should be allowed to buy them if it would give them undue control over the market. Your King of Commerce horseshit betrays your abject lack of understanding of the situation. The justification for granting corporate charters is that they serve a public need. If they don't do that, then there's no reason why they should even exist. As legal fictions granted by government, they exist at the pleasure of The People and for our benefit, and if their actions do not benefit us then the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Saying "virtue signal" is a way to virtue signal to your own team.
Re: Finally (Score:1)
Re: Finally (Score:4, Interesting)
Because the new leadership of the FTC believes those megamergers that have happened over the last 30 years were a bad idea. But they can't change the past, so they draw the line where they can.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the new leadership of the FTC believes those megamergers that have happened over the last 30 years were a bad idea. But they can't change the past, so they draw the line where they can.
To what end? You can hardly say it's to ensure a level playing field if the net result is to keep the playing field uneven in favor of the incumbents.
That's not how that works (Score:2)
Buying up all the market leaders to shut down competition == bad.
Starting your own game studio to compete with those market leaders == good.
Do I need to get out the puppets?
Raid on Clippy (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Dude is as thin as a paper clip. It's almost impossible to get direct hit. I honestly don't blame them.
Re: (Score:2)
Bring a Hammer (Score:2)
You need to hit him with a really big hammer!
Re: (Score:2)
Activision? Really? (Score:1)
Obviously I'm not playing whatever the popular games are. I haven't played any of their games since uh maybe ever. I played Warcraft a little bit when it was new and before they bought blizzard.
Let MS buy them. They'll kill the company and a whole bunch of new game companies will spring up.
Good for the FTC - go farther (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish all governments would stomp on mergers and acquisitions. There is absolutely nothing beneficial to society, when big companies merge, or when they buy up smaller companies that might compete with them. Seeing as the sole purpose of a government is to be of benefit to the society it governs, well...
After the "too big to fail" nonsense back in 2008, you would hopt that governments would be active working to limit the size of huge companies. I would like to see a hard regulation along the lines of "above size X, no more M&A" and "above size Y, you must divest". Where X and Y should be a lot smaller than the current size of MS, Google, Amazon, Apple & Co.
Wait what? (Score:2)
Can someone who understands American business explain to me why the FTC is suing in the courts over this? I thought this agency is tasked with approving such an acquisition, why are the courts involved?
Re: (Score:2)
I thought this agency is tasked with approving such an acquisition, why are the courts involved?
They are, but in cases like this, they handle it through the courts. You can think of them as kind of an attorney general in charge of market matters.
Re: (Score:3)
Most federal agencies have no direct enforcement ability with regards to regulations, it's all handled through the courts via civil suits. Which is why there's so much breaking of regulations, it's easy to get away with until the feds decide that it's time for another warning.
Re: (Score:3)
But the alternative would be to have government ministries similar to the Committee of Public Safety in the French Revolution, where they could basically "regulate" however they wanted, and the party being singled out would essentially have no recourse.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really a limitation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It shouldn't be just about impact on other businesses; it should also be about impact on consumers.
Look what happened with Mojang: Microsoft took an independent company with a product that was purely standalone, and added requirements that it be tied into the greater Microsoft ecosystems.
Same thing is likely to happen with Bethesda properties, and that alone should be grounds to block the merger.
... and (Score:2)
420 million?
Will Microsoft and Activision fight it? (Score:2)
The question is whether they are ready to fight.
Given the recent track record of FTC is losing the anti-trust cases:
https://www.reuters.com/legal/... [reuters.com]
But many other companies just give up, not wanting to waste their energies.
The question is whether Microsoft and Activision are willing to fight for this merger. If they do, it might take months, or even years. If past is any indication, they are very likely to win (with maybe some concessions). However they can also call it off, do separate agreements, and mov
69... (Score:3)
Nice rounding, I guess. The actual offer was $68.7 billion. But you go ahead and round it up.