• tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • bbbbbbbbbbb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • RustyWizard@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is a straw man. Nobody is saying they’re a monopoly. They’re saying Microsoft has a history of anti competitive behavior.

      • Ender of Games@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • 🐱TheCat@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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

          • Ender of Games@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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 "

        • RustyWizard@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • Sethayy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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%