Microsoft/Activison TRO Granted, Everyone Says They’re Happy About It
from the the-FTC-won't-let-them-be dept
Well, that was fast. In the ongoing saga of Microsoft’s attempt to purchase Activision Blizzard, we just discussed the FTC’s petition to the court to have a temporary restraining order put in place preventing the two companies from finalizing the purchase while regulatory bodies were still doing their thing. Honestly, the most interesting part of that story were the hints within the request pointing to some of the arguments that the FTC is likely to make in court.
But it’s also not exactly unimportant that the court swiftly granted the FTC it’s TRO, for the moment preventing the two companies from finalizing the deal at all. And, whether real or mere pantomiming, both Microsoft and Activision are stating that this is all great. Preferred, even.
The temporary order issued by District Court Judge Jacqueline Corley doesn’t do much to suggest which way the court is leaning on the merits of the FTC’s case. A Microsoft spokesperson even acknowledged to the Associated Press that “a temporary restraining order makes sense until we can receive a decision from the Court, which is moving swiftly.”
The first hearing on the FTC’s preliminary injunction request is scheduled to start on June 22, giving Microsoft until Friday to file its initial response in the matter. That tight schedule might be to Microsoft’s overall benefit, as Activision CEO Bobby Kotick said Monday that the FTC’s federal injunction request “accelerates the legal process” and that their “excellent legal team has been preparing for this move for more than a year.”
There’s some truth to this. The hearing for the preliminary injunction set for later this month will be Microsoft and Activision’s first chance to clap back at the arguments that the FTC is making. In theory, both companies are also under a July 18th deadline to finalize the deal, though that is something both sides could easily renegotiate. Although, honestly, if it weren’t for the separation fee Microsoft would have to pay if it pulled out of the deal, I almost wonder if the FTC’s suit and the need to appeal the CMA’s block of the deal in the UK would be enough to make Microsoft reconsider all of this.
These are two major fronts on which Microsoft has to fight this legal war. The first hearing on the appeal in the UK isn’t even scheduled until the end of July. And now it has to fight the FTC and try to convince the court that it really intends to keep its games cross-platform, despite its blatant lies in the past.
In other words, good luck.
Filed Under: antitrust, ftc, tro
Companies: activision blizzard, microsoft
Comments on “Microsoft/Activison TRO Granted, Everyone Says They’re Happy About It”
List the wrong doings and avoid gossip
For clarity and to lower the mistrust, please include the list of broken commitments by Microsoft. I for one don’t rely on word of mouth.
Re:
List the times you’ve been living on this planet.
P.S. Any list would still be “word of mouth”.
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish need I say more?
Re:
Extinguish the CensorStation? Sounds like a win to me!
If you’re talking about the “Xbox lied to the European Commission about Bethesda games”, the EU had no stipulations about requiring them to prevent making any of the games exclusive. They said that even if Xbox took the Bethesda games exclusive, it would not have a substantial impact on competition.
Nothing that Xbox has said indicates they’re going to yank CoD or other heavy-hitter ABK games away from people. Nor do the optics of such a decision indicate they’re gonna do it, especially because it would mean reneging on contracts and burning huge bridges.
One might bring up the fact that a lot of the contracts last for “only” 10 years. But fact of the matter is, 10 years is a long time in the business world. Contracts to keep releasing things on platforms in perpetuity, when there’s no given that those platforms & services will exist even 10 years out in the same way, it’s not something that’s feasible for a lot of businesses.
Remember tho, they definitely CAN’T point to Sony and say “Look, those guys are all about exclusives only, and in fact, nearly every deal they make with any studio is either exclusive or timed-exclusive. Why are they allowed to continue doing what you are now trying to stop us from doing?”
for those who simply cannot let go of the past, realize you are complaining about something Ms did in 96 which has since changed, that their main competitor in the gaming space does currently, almost daily.
Not saying MS is perfect, but damn, 30 years? long time to hold a grudge, especially since that was in relation to linux and Open Source software, which MS is currently one of the largest contributors to worldwide.
Woops, forgot to add(and can’t find the edit button on mobile :P)
Monopoly is only bad for the second guy, never the first 😛
Facts again
Two camps:
sony is desperate to keep it’s platform as more and more gamers turn their backs
Idiot gamers:
Who some how think the company will still be making games for a dying platform 10 years from now. Yep, sure.
Oh, the next one?
Those triple a games aren’t going to be in the next Sony console anyway!
Sony’s internal politics has turned off many gamers AND developers.