it's unfortunate for sure the MS/ABK transaction are stuck in a political play. It actually may lead the FTC do actually do the exact opposite of what they're supposed to do.

However if I remove myself and my pro gaming bias from the case to see the bigger picture I'm not sure I actually disagree with the FTC position. I mean big lobby reduce fundings for things like the FTC and IRS, so using the small funding you have to actually target those who are responsible may not be without merits. The IRS is so underfunded that they only target normal individual for easiness, if they were to say, guess what, we wont review smaller income individual we will use the funding to target wealthy individual and corporation, the system would be so out of whack they would have no choice but to fix it quick.

Think Microsoft has no choice now but to close over the FTC.

They said they would anyway but in case it's a bluff, FTC has already made their intentions clear.

Question if anyone knows, if Microsoft closes over FTC but FTC sues to block then does that act of that prevent Microsoft from closing or can they still close and proceed as if Microsoft owns Activision-Blizzard, then if FTC wins (which they won't) they will be forced to divest Activision-Blizzard?

I'm just wondering if stuff can come to Game Pass or we'd then have to wait for the court case to finish.

I know FTC doesn't approve or deny any deal, the courts do, but would the courts put an injunction on Microsoft to pause the merger?

Nah the taste is horrendous, doesn't even taste like food a lot of the time. One of the biggest complaints for people going to America is how bad the food is. British food isn't thaf bad it's just kind of bland for the most part.

I Will do some research on this, but my guess is a system like this should only be seen to apply remedy to a situation and prevent them by making the output result illegal and not the process itself. If this is the case, even if the FTC sue to block MS, may still merge and as the court case look only at the result either anticipated or done as no real matter, they will issue a ruling which would force a divestment. If that's the case and the merger was not completed by the entities it would than not actually be illegal do the action of merging but illegal to produce the result of the merge.

For simplification it's like saying it's not illegal to hit a nail with a hammer but if I find a nail hammered in I would force you to remove it.

This is quickly becoming one of my favourite threads on here. Where else on here can be completely taken over by a discussion about beans on toast.
Just to have my say on this important topic, I think beans on toast is a decent snack, but spaghetti hoops on toast hits different.

That does make sense.

Guess it would be more appropriate to label it as a sue to divest at this stage...?

We can only hope because the FTC vs Meta (Within) federal court case took 7 months to finish and Meta only finalised their acquisition after it was over.

I can't be dealing with this for another 7 months, haha.

If Microsoft can close then I'm fine, I can just laugh at FTC for those months because I'd see the deal as already over with, they will not win.

Maybe we could make a thread about this try them out vote and rank them. My contender would be Brie with maple syrup on toast:

Beans on toast..?

Oh perfect timing Basil! got another confused Texan in here!