They need months to go through their word doc to cnrtl/command Z redactions? I’m sure they have original docs or drafts without it.
From the lawyer
——————
The US Chamber of Commerce (a business organisation, not a government department) has filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking correspondence between the FTC and other regulators over the merger. The time frame for the Chamber's request is Dec. 1, 2021, to the present.
The request is not online yet, but it says this:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, and 16 C.F.R. § 4.11, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ("Chamber") hereby requests the following information:
1. All records related to communications between the FTC and any and all foreign jurisdictions regarding Microsoft Corp.'s acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Inc. This request includes, but is not limited to, all such communications between or among the FTC and any and all non-U.S. agencies or authorities, and any press statements or drafts of press statements. The timeframe for the Chamber's request is December 1, 2021 to the present.
The public interest relating to the FTC's coordination with foreign authorities has already been demonstrated. And there is specifically public interest in mainstream media outlets regarding whether the FTC and foreign authorities coordinated in reviewing the Microsoft/Activision transaction. And the contribution to public understanding is likely to be significant, 16 C.F.R. §§ 4.8(e)(2)(i)(D), because the FTC has previously resisted public disclosure of its coordination with foreign antitrust authorities and has apparently not disclaimed the existence of any coordination with respect to the Microsoft/Activision transaction. Production of these records to the Chamber thus will respond to significant public interest where there has been insufficient public disclosure.
I guess that it will be published here during the day.
They already did the same with the Illumina/Grail case.
——————
The US Chamber of Commerce (a business organisation, not a government department) has filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking correspondence between the FTC and other regulators over the merger. The time frame for the Chamber's request is Dec. 1, 2021, to the present.
The request is not online yet, but it says this:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, and 16 C.F.R. § 4.11, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ("Chamber") hereby requests the following information:
1. All records related to communications between the FTC and any and all foreign jurisdictions regarding Microsoft Corp.'s acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Inc. This request includes, but is not limited to, all such communications between or among the FTC and any and all non-U.S. agencies or authorities, and any press statements or drafts of press statements. The timeframe for the Chamber's request is December 1, 2021 to the present.
The public interest relating to the FTC's coordination with foreign authorities has already been demonstrated. And there is specifically public interest in mainstream media outlets regarding whether the FTC and foreign authorities coordinated in reviewing the Microsoft/Activision transaction. And the contribution to public understanding is likely to be significant, 16 C.F.R. §§ 4.8(e)(2)(i)(D), because the FTC has previously resisted public disclosure of its coordination with foreign antitrust authorities and has apparently not disclaimed the existence of any coordination with respect to the Microsoft/Activision transaction. Production of these records to the Chamber thus will respond to significant public interest where there has been insufficient public disclosure.
I guess that it will be published here during the day.
They already did the same with the Illumina/Grail case.
I still think it’ll go through…. You think with Jim commenting on how they only had a three year contract, or was it five (on top of their remaining contract/exclusivity), if he followed up with say “we’re in talks” It would’ve looked better on both parties or could they plan is to just spill out negativity on what it meant to them and how it affects them?
If in the end it weren’t to go through, could it be bad for Sony if they wanted to buy any major publishers for ms could turn around and say the same and quash said purchase?
Like this could be a pro and con for both. Ms gets abk and Sony could sweep away a major publisher in a sort of fairness, granted if they don’t burn any bridges with what’s gonna be disclosed by the ftc, no?
Microsoft Corp. and Activision Blizzard Inc. met with the UK's antitrust watchdog this week to hash out proposals over concerns their $69 billion deal would hamper competition in the video game industry, according to people familiar with the discussions, as global regulators step up their scrutiny of the controversial deal.
Lawyers for Microsoft attended a private hearing with the Competition and Markets Authority in London on Monday to discuss the regulator's provisional findings and assess the feasibility of proposed remedies, said the people, who asked not to be named discussing a confidential matter.
Microsoft also said it's willing to pay a third-party monitor to oversee their compliance, the people said, a measure designed to relieve the CMA from having to devote resources to make sure the tech giant follows through on its promises.
Spokespeople at Microsoft and CMA declined to comment. Activision Blizzard separately met with the CMA on Wednesday on the proposals. A further hearing with Sony Corp., the main opponent to the deal, is scheduled for next week, the people said.
The London meetings were led by the case's independent inquiry group, with support from the case team, said the people. The CMA will publish its final decision on the merger on April 26.
The companies plan to submit a revised proposals to EU authorities this week following the closed-door discussions, the people said.
For the fact they have to use a 3rd party to watch should be sus at best. How are you going to say something that can harm with no evidence to prove?
They did so when they bought linkden, which they (the cma) went through similar proceedings
MS will still honour the commitments (especially as the regulators will be keeping an eye on them and could still over turn the decision if its deemed MS lied to them.
True. And they will keep the parity for content and release dates. But I am sure MS will squeeze more pixels and performance out of the Xbox version.
Yeah, the contract includes that, but if they don’t sign I doubt it’ll come to ps plus cos that’s a whole separate license
Hurry up and put the games on GamePass, I want to play all the COD campaigns I missed ASAP.
It makes sense, since kotick said this is the time of year when Sony World reach out to them about it
Wish they’d just mention their source as Reuters, since they broke it
*edit to add below as update
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/B6JDB6WUKVIILKCTMMCZGKXT2U.jpg)
www.reuters.com
BRUSSELS, March 2 (Reuters) - EU antitrust regulators are not expected to demand that Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O) sell assets to win approval for its $69 billion acquisition of Activision (ATVI.O), with licensing deals likely to satisfy their concerns, three people familiar with the matter said.
Microsoft President Brad Smith last month said the U.S. software giant was ready to offer rivals licensing deals to address antitrust concerns but it would not sell Activision's lucrative "Call of Duty" franchise.
The EU competition enforcer declined to comment.
Microsoft said it was "committed to offering effective and easily enforceable solutions that address the European Commission's concerns".
"Our commitment to grant long term 100% equal access to Call of Duty to Sony, Steam, NVIDIA and others preserves the deal's benefits to gamers and developers and increases competition in the market," a spokesperson said.
*edit to add below as update
Exclusive: Microsoft set to win EU nod on Activision with licensing offer, sources say
Microsoft Corp is expected to secure EU antitrust approval for its $69 billion acquisition of Activision with its offer of licensing deals to rivals, three people familiar with the matter said, helping it to clear a major hurdle.
www.reuters.com
BRUSSELS, March 2 (Reuters) - EU antitrust regulators are not expected to demand that Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O) sell assets to win approval for its $69 billion acquisition of Activision (ATVI.O), with licensing deals likely to satisfy their concerns, three people familiar with the matter said.
Microsoft President Brad Smith last month said the U.S. software giant was ready to offer rivals licensing deals to address antitrust concerns but it would not sell Activision's lucrative "Call of Duty" franchise.
The EU competition enforcer declined to comment.
Microsoft said it was "committed to offering effective and easily enforceable solutions that address the European Commission's concerns".
"Our commitment to grant long term 100% equal access to Call of Duty to Sony, Steam, NVIDIA and others preserves the deal's benefits to gamers and developers and increases competition in the market," a spokesperson said.
Sarah Cardell named CEO of Competition and Markets Authority
Business Secretary confirms appointment of Sarah Cardell as CEO of Competition and Markets Authority.