@NobleTeam360 

Lord Jizz has spoken. 

PI happening pimp.

I agree the FTC wins, the same people who said CMA will accept the deal are mostly the same ones who say FTC lost

I think if this were actually going to be decided on the merits of the arguments made, the FTC would lose, but as Hoeg has pointed out on twitter several times now, the default in these preliminary injunction hearings is to side with the government. The FTC’s case being weak isn’t enough to have their PI request denied, as far as I can tell the Judge would have to determine that their case is basically completely meritless for the PI to be denied.

That is a very high bar to clear.

They're also too dumb to know when they're signing a bad contract according to FTC.

I'd take the word of Phil (who said 5+ years) over Microsoft's lawyer who likely stumbled on the dates.

I think they can't point out the EU remedy because FTC demanded it not be used as evidence as it was too close to the trial for them to counter (I think). Which is annoying because the EU remedy settles their complaints of "you didn't give it to XYZ" because the EU remedy is a "anyone who wants it" contract which applies worldwide, Microsoft can't pick and choose, Lol. The EU contract is brilliant and counters a lot of FTC's arguments.

It actually annoyed me when FTC kept saying "but Ubitus is in Taiwain! (they're actually HQ'd in Japan now)" and "but Boosteroid is in Ukraine!" "how can they benefit Americans?" and not a single person mentioned datacentres or how Cloud Gaming even works. Americans can access both Ubitus and Boosteroid, Ubitus is even working with Intel on expanding.

Really an own goal by Microsoft to not mention this basic stuff, the judge did ask the FTC how they know that Americans can't use these services though and FTC's lawyer response was "I don't know" Lol...So it isn't like they could defend their claim but it may not be enough and could put doubt into the judges mind.

The judge did mention that latency is an issue with Cloud Gaming so she may know that already...Microsoft probably could have driven that home a bit more, that xCloud latency is the worst of the services right now, so people would rather use GeForce Now than xCloud. Honestly should have mentioned that Cloud Gaming is heavily dependent on peoples home internet too and American ISPs are currently throttling that growth, if FTC can say that Microsoft won't be a success in iOS/Android because of Apple/Google's practices then why not Microsoft say they won't be a success in Cloud Gaming until someone does anything about the ISP companies?

The Judge was no doubt, a very smart lady, she was on the ball way more than I thought, I think she absolutely destroyed FTC in the Console argument and that is no doubt in my mind tossed out but while I think FTC didn't put forward a good argument in Cloud, I don't know if Microsoft hammered their point home enough for Cloud, the Cloud segment was actually really short Tbh so it's hard to say what way she is leaning? She may come to her own determination that Cloud will be its own market that Microsoft will dominate in the future, I don't think her comment that Consoles will vanish one day is particularly encouraging, Lol.

She definitely understood the market as a whole way more than FTC/CMA have in years, honestly if she does grant the PI then I'll be a bit frustrated and disagree with her but I'd try to respect it and move on because I do think the Judge did a brilliant job over that case and if she thinks that Cloud Gaming is its own market that Microsoft will dominate in the future then fair enough, I suppose...

One thing that gives me faith even if she believes the Cloud stuff is that she was constantly mentioning the consumer benefits of the deal and those consumer benefits may outweigh any potential, hypothetical, maybe/maybe not, future Cloud "market" that may arise.

Whatever the case, yall better not turn on the Judge. She did a great job this trial in sorting through the BS and having a great understanding from a non gaming perspective. Going to come down to cloud market and you only got MS to blame for not having a stronger case, which they should have learned from the CMA...

Going to be a hell of a fanboy war next week regardless

Nah, I wouldn't blame Microsoft or the Judge, I think Microsoft's case was strong even if there was one or two holes in the Cloud defence, I think they did almost as good as you can expect and nobody really fucked up but it only takes one small idea to sow doubt into the Judges mind, nobody knows what she is thinking and she will come to her own determination, if she thinks the Cloud is a market then there's not much Microsoft can argue to say it isn't. Microsoft has shown her all the benefits to other Cloud providers even if that scenario happens but she may not think it's good enough for the future market, there isn't much more Microsoft can do there, they offered a Cloud deal to everyone, aside from Amazon, Lol.

I do think if this deal is blocked based on the Cloud though, I think there's a real possibility that it could actually kill the Cloud Market or be the start of its death. Google has already ditched it, a trillion dollar company couldn't put the investment it, Amazon is barely trying and not even putting their own titles into Luna sometimes, another trillion dollar company struggling. Microsoft is another trillion dollar company struggling to grow Cloud Gaming and it's currently losing them money, why would they continue to invest into Cloud Gaming if it's going to cripple their growth opportunities in multiple other segments? GeForce Now is a trillion dollar company struggling to get support from publishers.

If these trillion dollar companies are struggling to make it work then how can the tiny companies be expected to make it work? At least this 10 year deal gives them all a huge leg-up in the industry to give them a chance in the market, and there is absolutely zero guarantee they would have got it without this acquisition, Activision have made clear they aren't interested, there is also zero guarantee that Activision wouldn't just give their entire library to the highest bidder and thus cut out all other Cloud competitors, in fact I would argue that is the most likely scenario for a money grubbing company like Activision. Not to mention these companies need very expensive infrastructure too, maybe these content deals allow them to focus more on investing into infrastructure in the meantime and grow their services.

It really feels like to protect a "future" "maybe" market, we may end up shooting it in the knee right at the start.

Props to @Ryuu96 for the Microsoft vs. FTC play by play. It looked like a lot of work, but very much appreciated. Thanks.

No props to the streamer though.

Reading all of the FTC's many blunders online, it does seem like it would be a miscarriage of justice for the FTC to win this case. But anything is possible, the government badly wants to be seen as limiting the growth of big tech.

Some other points which I think could have been made by MS.

• The cloud, if we accept to define it as its own market, is already way more diverse than the console market in the number of actors.
• If ever Cloud gaming properties become good enough for mass market adoption, why would MS content position itself differently than with the console market even in the context of ABK titles becoming exclusive? Sony will for sure use their Massive exclusive library to secure a competitive position and if they don't that would be of their own choice, likewise for Nintendo, steam, Tencent, and every other actor with a sufficient content library.
• Why would MS content restriction to the cloud be judged cutthroat four cloud gaming when a competitor with content proven to successfully give them a dominant position in the console market and with 4 times the amount of exclusive not be considered so? So if MS is blocked from merging for fear of driving the cloud market when/if it matures, wouldn't this would only result in conferring Sony the abilities/benefits from the same dominant position it enjoys currently in the console market and being the one driving the cloud market? So here the court would not protect the consumer, only be deciding who will lead and who will play catch up in a mature cloud market.