LurkerJ said: @EpicRandy The legal basis has been explained by both sides of the aisle and was satisfactory to the judge, what wasn't shown or explained well to the judge is the material change of circumstances that made them ask for the trial to be adjourned, as a result, he asked for a written testimony from the CMA, Mr Beard (MS lawyer) said they would help the CMA out with the testimony by sending them the SONY CoD details. The testimony, that must have been handed today, is required to satisfy the judge on the "MCC" or the material change of circumstances, this is the only reason that the adjournment is/was conditional. Always happy to be corrected but even the written ruling by the judge mentions that he was satisfied and just waiting for the testimony now (which he asked for so he could understand the MCC). my dude, thanks for the discussions along.... literally years now? Lmao. I have never believed in any outcome but the merger going through (put my money where my mouth was as well), I still don't think it's the right path, short term certain gains should never justify probabilities of bigger harm, no matter how distant they might be, you see, our differences are fundamental, so naturally, we are unlikely to ever see eye to eye on this. I will admit that MS is being singled out with this merger, not because they're different or special, it seems this all happened because Lina met her match in the newly appointed Sarah, I hope they continue to work together despite the losses. I can't keep up with the back and forth anymore, especially when I am on the losers' side Enjoy the outcome. |
We are actually saying the same thing on the first part, but you added precision, thanks.
I don't believe our position is fundamentally different though, I am all for more and stronger regulation and more power to resolve conditions for entities that have outgrown competition in their respective market, we just differ on the way to get there and our difference is somewhat magnified through the lens of this deal.