By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

I'm trying to upload on my phone as well. Sorry if I broke the thread lol. Thank you for fixing it Ryuu! 

Last edited by smroadkill15 - on 30 June 2023

Around the Network
smroadkill15 said:

I'm trying to upload on my phone as well. Sorry if I broke the thread lol

No worries, it's VGC's uploader I think, it never works.



Lmao. Someone actually made this.

Even if she grants the injunction, I can't be mad at her, she was brilliant, slapped down that Console complaint.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 30 June 2023



Ryuu96 said:

Lmao. Someone actually made this.

Even if she grants the injunction, I can't be mad at her, she was brilliant, slapped down that Console complaint.

I don't know what exactly is the threshold for the FTC to overcome here. I know it's not the highest which would require FTC to prove without reasonable doubt MS is going to create an SLC as a result of the merger. But under that, there is a different level that ranges from mere probability to more likely than not to highly likely. Even below that, it's probable that they only had to show that it is probable they do find an SLC by continuing their investigation

In case it is based on the likeliness of an SLC, even with the lower standard of mere probability, the FTC still had to prove that the worse possible outcome would still result in an SLC and not just something which current actors might mitigate in various ways. 

In case it is based on the probability to find an SLC by continuing their investigation, I don't know if the Judge will take into consideration the remaining time between now and the FTC internal court case vs the time FTC had to prepare up to this point to see if that's even plausible. like (you took 1 year to come up with those ludicrous findings and you think you can find the holy grail in a month...)

For me, the only win for the FTC in all those days was to get MS to say they did not do a pro-competitive assessment of the merger. which is not that strong anyway because

  • There's no reason to do so if you don't intend on making ABK content exclusive anyway
  • The absence of a pro-competitive assessment does not show a likeliness of an anti-competitive effect which the FTC has to show.
  • MS work was focused on demonstrating no anti-competitive effect and if those findings are factual then the effect may only range from no competitive effects to pro-competitive effect anyway. And the FTC did a piss poor job refuting anything MS did produce.

Another thing to consider though is that since MS have demonstrated they intend to fully retain ABK as a separate entity within the organization meaning any divestitures would be easy to achieve, this might raise the bar for the FTC to obtain a PI.



Around the Network

I just ask ChatGTP, take this with a grain of salt but it appears quite accurate and logical:

Question :

What is the threshold of proof the FTC has to overcome to obtain a PI on a merger?

Response:

The threshold of proof that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has to overcome to obtain a preliminary injunction (PI) on a merger is to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its case. In other words, the FTC needs to present sufficient evidence to convince the court that it is likely to succeed in proving that the merger violates antitrust laws and would harm competition.

To obtain a preliminary injunction, the FTC typically needs to establish the following:

Likelihood of success: The FTC must show a reasonable likelihood that it will succeed in proving that the merger violates antitrust laws, such as Section 7 of the Clayton Act, which prohibits mergers that may substantially lessen competition.

Irreparable harm: The FTC must demonstrate that if the merger is allowed to proceed, it would cause irreparable harm to competition or consumers. This harm should be significant and not easily compensable through monetary damages.

Balance of equities: The FTC needs to convince the court that the balance of equities tips in favor of granting the preliminary injunction. This means that the potential harm to competition or consumers outweighs any potential harm to the merging parties or other parties involved.

Public interest: The FTC must show that granting the preliminary injunction is in the public interest, considering factors such as preserving competition, protecting consumers, and promoting a fair marketplace.

Question:

In case the merger would result in the acquiring party being run as a separate entity within the buyer organization, meaning that a divesture would be easy to request and execute. Does it raise the threshold the FTC has to overcome to obtain the PI?

Response:

If the acquiring party in a merger is planned to be run as a separate entity within the buyer organization, and a potential divestiture would be feasible, it could impact the threshold that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) needs to overcome to obtain a preliminary injunction (PI). In such cases, the FTC may need to present additional evidence and arguments to demonstrate that the proposed separate entity arrangement does not adequately address the antitrust concerns raised by the merger.

While the specifics would depend on the particular circumstances and facts of the case, the FTC would likely argue that the proposed separate entity arrangement is not sufficient to mitigate the potential anti-competitive effects of the merger. The FTC may contend that even with a separate entity, there could still be risks to competition, market concentration, or consumer welfare that warrant intervention and the granting of a preliminary injunction.

Ultimately, the threshold the FTC needs to overcome remains the same—demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and the public interest. However, in cases where a divestiture may seem easier due to the separate entity arrangement, the FTC may need to provide more compelling evidence and arguments to convince the court that the proposed arrangement does not adequately address the competitive concerns at hand.



heads up! supraland six inches under got the achievement update and now everything should unlock :)






konnichiwa said:

heads up! supraland six inches under got the achievement update and now everything should unlock :)

Finally! Lets see how many achievements I get. 

Edit: I went from 23 to 39 out of 53.

Last edited by trunkswd - on 30 June 2023

VGChartz Sales Analyst and Writer - William D'Angelo - I stream on Twitch and have my own YouTubeFollow me on Twitter @TrunksWD.

Writer of the Sales Comparison | Weekly Hardware Breakdown Top 10 | Weekly Sales Analysis | Marketshare Features, as well as daily news on the Video Game Industry.

trunkswd said:
konnichiwa said:

heads up! supraland six inches under got the achievement update and now everything should unlock :)

Finally! Lets see how many achievements I get. 

Edit: I went from 23 to 39 out of 53.

1000 =p   Was worried it didn't  count a chest but it did phew ^^'.






konnichiwa said:
trunkswd said:

Finally! Lets see how many achievements I get. 

Edit: I went from 23 to 39 out of 53.

1000 =p   Was worried it didn't a count a chest but it did phew ^^'.

Oh nice. I got to the credits and stopped. So not surprised I am missing several of them. I just hit 50% achievement completion overall with 425 games played. I had to unlock a crazy amount to go from 45% to 50% completed in the last year or so.



VGChartz Sales Analyst and Writer - William D'Angelo - I stream on Twitch and have my own YouTubeFollow me on Twitter @TrunksWD.

Writer of the Sales Comparison | Weekly Hardware Breakdown Top 10 | Weekly Sales Analysis | Marketshare Features, as well as daily news on the Video Game Industry.