A related footnote includes more REDACTED content and this: The only evidence the FTC cites to support its position that PCs "are not commercially reasonable alternatives" is testimony from one Microsoft executive in an unrelated case that "she does not "view the Xbox console as a replacement or substitute for the iPhone or iPad." FTC. But the iPhone and iPad are both mobile devices, not gaming PCs. (Page 12)

The FTC is so fucking stupid, Lol.

Also not the core of their argument but funny to see Microsoft using Sony's own words against them and FTC's expert witness own paper against him, Lol.

Final Part

More generally, to carry its burden as to the content-library and cloud-gaming "markets," the FTC must prove that al of the following claims are likely true. In fact, none is true. (Page 21)

First, the FTC must prove that, but for this merger, Activision would allow COD to be included in third-party content-library or cloud-gaming services. REDACTED (5 sentences). This merger could only increase access to COD on these services, to the benefit of consumers—as cloud provider Nvidia agrees. (Page 22)
Second, the FTC must then prove that the post-merger combined company would likely withhold COD from subscription and cloud gaming services. Again, however, the FTC does not even try to make that showing, nor could it—particularly in light of the binding contracts Microsoft has already struck with Nvidia and other cloud providers. (Page 22)

Third, the FTC must additionally prove that any post-merger withholding would substantially lessen competition. It cannot do so because exclusivity arrangements are ubiquitous; Sony and Nintendo already use them more than Microsoft does; and, as discussed above, they raise no competitive concerns except in narrow circumstances involving substantial market power and large foreclosure percentages, neither of which is present here. (Page 22)

Fourth, as to the cloud-gaming "market," the FTC must prove that cloud gaming will develop in the near-to-intermediate term as a genuine alternative to consoles or performance PCs, in particular for multi-player, fast-twitch, graphics-intensive games such as COD. REDACTED (two sentences). The FTC can show no such thing. As Sony admits, network engineers are nowhere close to solving the immense technological challenges presented by that cloud game-play model, which is one of the reasons why Activision refuses to make COD available for cloud gaming. And there is no basis for blocking a merger based on speculation about harm to non-existent markets that are unlikely to materialize anytime in the foreseeable future. (Page 22)

Fifth, if the FTC could establish that a cloud-gaming market will develop, it would also have to show that Xbox will be a major player in it; otherwise, it would have no cloud-gaming business to promote through exclusivity arrangements. The FTC cannot substantiate that speculation either. REDACTED (6 sentences) (Page 22)

The FTC's failure to demonstrate a likelihood of ultimate success means there is no reason to consider the equities. But in any event, the equities—both public and private—weigh against granting the "extraordinary and drastic remedy" the agency requests. (Page 23)

As a threshold matter, Microsoft's merger with Activision does not implicate the "principal" "public equity consideration [that Congress had] in mind when it enacted section 13(b)"—namely, the need to maintain the pre-merger "status quo" so the FTC can award effective relief if it succeeds on the merits. This consideration applies chiefly in the context of horizontal mergers where two competing companies integrate their operations and, in the process, often eliminate stores, factories, or other redundant assets, making it difficult to unscramble the merger. (Page 23)

Microsoft's vertical merger with Activision, however, raises none of these concerns. Microsoft and Activision are not competitors in the relevant markets alleged. And Microsoft intends to operate Activision similar to other recent acquisitions, such as Minecraft developer Mojang. In other words, Activision's creative operations will remain separate and continue to run as they did pre-merger. Consequently, even in the (unlikely) event the FTC continues to press its Part 3 case and then succeeds on the ultimate merits in that proceeding, the agency can order Microsoft's divesture of Activision—"an effective ultimate remedy". As a result, the "principal public equity" cuts against the government. (Page 23)
In addition, granting a preliminary injunction would kill the deal, robbing consumers of the "beneficial economic effects and procompetitive advantages" resulting from this merger, including increased availability of Activision content. By contrast, there is no risk that consumers would be injured while the administrative process runs its course—Sony's existing contract for COD runs through 2024 and it has an offer for much longer access. (Page 24)

Exhibits and content

Coming soon

Remedies offered and approved by the EC

Coming soon

Source: Idas

Can see why Microsoft wanted 5 days, Lol. They really want to dismantle every single argument as thorough as possible.

Feels a little like the CMA got played by the FTC, they expected the CMA to do their dirty work for them but now they've been baited by Microsoft and have barely prepared (most their argument is unchanged from last year) and now in the likely chance that FTC loses in court, the CMA is now truly on its own and that may weaken their case in front of CAT.

They both probably hoped for EC to block it as well, that would have truly killed the deal but it feels like FTC has panicked on the rumours of Microsoft closing the deal and CAT's trial being sooner than expected.

CMA: Deal blocked again.

FTC: There, so we can just end this legal stuff peacefully ok MS?

MS: :) 

FTC: ….. right?

MS: :)

FTC: 

Reading all of this just makes me wonder how this deal is even getting this much scrutiny from regulators (granted just two of them as 40 other countries have approved the deal). FTC and CMA both have basically no case and are trying to block the deal on the most flimsy (can it even be called flimsy when the evidence is flat-out cherry-picked data to suit their argument? ) of evidence. I don't see any way the FTC gets the injunction it's requesting, this looks like a slam dunk for MS (knock on wood some bizarre happenings where they rule in favor of the FTC)

On another note, MS is going to have to extend the deadline (renegotiate with ABK) as the CAT trial is set well after the deadline. So either MS closes over the CMA regardless of the CAT trial or they must 100% know that ABK is going to stay at the table and renegotiate the deal in order to give CAT the time it needs to have its trial. The latter option seems kind of risky imo, assuming the FTC loses its injunction request..... nothing is there to really stop MS from just closing over the UK regulator and keeping the deal as is. Compared to renegotiating with ABK (in order to allow the CAT to have its trial), who will 100% demand more money. Plus there's no guarantee that CAT will go out of its way to allow the deal to go ahead instead of doing what it always does in just sending the case back to the CMA (which even if CAT blocks the CMA from using certain arguments, who's to say they don't block on some equally dumb reasoning or revive the console harm reasoning (delaying the acquisition even further).

Beating the FTC and then just closing over the UK seems like the more viable choice from my perspective and one with fewer variables.

>You’re by yourself flying towards earth
>Earths lights have long since gone out
>You navigate through it’s cluttered debris ridden atmosphere
>You pick up a faint transmission that you can’t make out
>You find a landing spot and proceed to explore solo
>You see no signs of life in any direction except a single destroyed settlement
>As you approach the transmission clears to a broken crackle but you hear a single sentence
>”A_ot__r… S_tt__m_nt… N_ed_.. _ou_… He__”
>As you stand trying to figure out what it says you see a distant green glow on the horizon moving towards you …
>Your Geiger counter starts to tick and tick and tick
>You turn to run back to you ship but you start hearing the nearing sound of footsteps ..running, getting closer
>You turn around to see a radiated glowing man wearing a trench court and western hat
>The screen fades to black
>The title card plays “Starfield”

Leaker already said S5 would focus on PVE but the end of stream image may hint at it too.

People are speculating that this image is a tease for S5 which shows Iratus controlling a satellite and sending off a beacon to signal to The Banished.

It makes sense because it's the next step forward from the current narrative which is Iratus has infected Spartans/the base which led to Infection returning and now the next step would be him signalling to The Banished and them coming to attack the base, which then sets up Firefight with the Spartans being attacked on various maps.