Yeah, if Microsoft wants to compete, they need to build great game making culture, not just spend lavish amounts of money to acquire all the independent studios out there after the Bethesda acquisition for $8B. Now Activision for $70B. What next?...Nintendo for $150B?.
And using monopolistic profits from other tech businesses like Enterprise software/cloud. And maybe in the future AI profits with OpenAI.
We've had enough of a future controlled by Big Tech. The goal in all cases should be to make them smaller, not more powerful.
Nobody said that it is Sony's fault. The fact remains though, that it is Sony, not Microsoft, for which there are monopoly concerns on the console market.
Given that Sony has an overwhelming lead, it really is not a problem for microsoft to do this acquisition.
I think the overarching concern is giving tech giant like Microsoft a hand when it's already entrenched in consumer, enterprise and government markets.
We don't need to inflate an already bighead corporate oligarch.
The evidence presented at trial showed that this vertical (not horizontal) acquisition would increase competition in the market. If antitrust laws were based on the conception of monopolization you seem to be suggesting then any acquisition or merger would be a monopolist’s act, and that’s ridiculous.
> vertical (not horizontal) acquisition [..] any acquisition or merger would be a monopolist’s act
Past a certain size, it absolutely is. E.g. a food producer will have a much harder time entering (or staying in) a vertically-integrated market (as an independent entity), where all the grocery chains privilege offerings by producers they own.
Using other near-monopolies as argument for why new ones should be allowed to form will lead to a very consolidated market, which is exactly what anti-trust is supposed to prevent.
You’ve moved beyond this specific acquisition and are now talking in generalities. I don’t agree with your post; however, I would note that the situation at issue here in the Microsoft case is actually very similar to your hypothetical. Activision is the food producer. Sony is the grocery chain. Microsoft is also a grocery chain, one that is losing to Sony and is trying to buy Activision in order to compete.
The solution isn’t to sanction Sony because it’s not clear that Sony has done anything illegal to obtain its market position. It’s not illegal to have a monopoly. The solution is to let competition arise from the market and increase consumer choice either by driving down prices or providing more options for consumers. In the market for grocery stores, Microsoft buying Activision is anti-monopolist and pro-competition.
Pay special attention to the theories of harm advanced by the FTC and note that the harm focused on by the FTC is that done to a foreign company (Sony) rather than US consumers.
That is not evidence of your claim. The FTC argues that the deal would reduce competition, and that reduced competition is bad for consumers. To show that the deal would reduce competition, they focused on the impact the deal would have on Microsoft's competitors, i.e., Sony.
Well if we can’t agree that the FTC’s position in this case is blatantly pro-foreign-monopolist at the expense of domestic consumers then I guess we’re sort of at an impasse. You seem to be asking me for a source from the FTC saying that they’re bought and sold by foreign powers. It’s rare to have someone confess to a crime, so you can see how this type of statement from the FTC would be hard to come by (although we can get close: “the FTC announced in March that it would send its own agency officials to aid Europe in implementing and enforcing the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA). When challenged in an April congressional hearing, Kahn defended her position as simply ‘good government.’” per https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/4075612-how-one-us-go...). I’m basing my argument on what the FTC has actually done, regardless of what they have(n’t) said:
Microsoft offered direct evidence of this acquisition being good for US and global consumers (including “willfully” entering into agreements to preserve consumer access to their products via their competitors’ platforms). FTC offered “evidence” that Sony’s monopoly position would be (only slightly) eroded by this acquisition and then hand-waved that this is bad for competition and then hand-waved that this is bad for consumers. Further, the FTC’s own expert (who provided the “evidence” of Sony’s monopoly being eroded) couldn’t even support his chosen inputs/assumptions beyond more hand-waving that amounted to “well that’s what I think would happen.”
So you’ve got a poorly (if at all) supported tertiary-effect on the only people that should actually matter to the FTC (domestic consumers). That’s why the court found that FTC had “not shown a likelihood it will prevail on its claim this particular vertical merger in this specific industry may substantially lessen competition.” The FTC shouldn’t be throwing US consumers under the bus in order to protect a foreign company’s dominant market position, especially with such flimsy evidence. If this was the first or second time this happened with the New FTC? Maybe that’s a coincidence. This many times? Well, that’s enemy action.
Where is your evidence that the FTC’s meritless case is anything other than the FTC working at the behest of a foreign monopolist? Who gains from this FTC action other than Sony?
It's fine that you dislike their argument. The court did, too. That doesn't mean the only explanation is secret, massively illegal payments from Sony to FTC commissioners.
You asked if I had anything to back up my claim that “Lina Khan and the FTC have been brazenly bought and sold by a foreign company and weaponized against US consumers.” I provided my evidence: their actions to date supporting foreign powers and companies at the expense of US companies and consumers.
It’s fine that you dislike my argument or conclusion. That doesn’t mean that my evidence doesn’t back them up.
The FTC has openly stated their going to be more aggressive fighting acquisitions in general to test the limits of the current law, and has pursued other cases as part of that strategy too that aren't "advancing the interests of a foreign company."
You believe Microsoft's claims that this will be good for consumers. I don't. I believe the FTC's claims that "bad for their main competitor" = "bad for consumers." You don't. Fine.
But their actions here are entirely consistent with their stated platform and you haven't provided a shred of evidence that there's any of the behind-the-scenes bullshit you claim.
