By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Machiavellian on 11 May 2023

Another Issue I know MS probably does not want to go down is that they do not want to have to have support multiple OS teams. I wonder if MS could license their Xbox OS team but then again compatibility is an issue. MS would need to see a significant advantage which I believe there is one to creating a another OS team just for mobile handheld devices. Can the market become big enough for the amount of resources needed to get this done.



Around the Network
G2ThaUNiT on 11 May 2023


Ryuu96 on 11 May 2023
gtotheunit91 said:



the-pi-guy on 11 May 2023
Machiavellian said:

I know that the UK can block the deal, I am saying that how can they block the deal because of something that does not exist in their boarder.  That would setup a war of attrition where each country can basically do the same and thus when a large UK company wants to purchase a company, in retaliation another country can impose world wide conditions to block the deal.  Also, I would believe that the CMA would need to prove that if cloud services outside of UK boarders has a effect on their own market with this particular deal.  Its one thing to make claims, its another to provide concrete proof which I would expect to be the bar if it goes to CAT.  Like I stated, I have no real clue how UK courts work but if that is not the bar than yeah, the CMA has way to much power and the domino effect may not be what they are looking for.

The second step that MS can do is just comply with all the conditions the CMA stated was lacking in their agreements.  The other thing I wonder but not sure is could MS just leave the console business in the UK.  I know the UK is a sizeable chunk of MS console business but it would be interesting if MS value this deal more than the UK market.  Not sure if that works but MS has expand to more regions then they have before and thus could see making up the difference.

I think this logic is a little strange to me.

You clearly understand that a country can block a deal that technically concerns global affairs, but you don't seem to think it's reasonable for them to do so explicitly for those reasons.  

I would throw out there, that other countries do have laws that make it harder or prevent other countries from investing in certain areas. Even the stuff that you are concerned about does exist. Like the US basically banned companies in Taiwan, Japan from selling new microchip technology with China. It tends to be more related to high security domains. 

It's not quite the same scenario, but plenty of countries do have laws preventing companies from other countries in investing in them. 



Machiavellian on 11 May 2023
the-pi-guy said:
Machiavellian said:

I know that the UK can block the deal, I am saying that how can they block the deal because of something that does not exist in their boarder.  That would setup a war of attrition where each country can basically do the same and thus when a large UK company wants to purchase a company, in retaliation another country can impose world wide conditions to block the deal.  Also, I would believe that the CMA would need to prove that if cloud services outside of UK boarders has a effect on their own market with this particular deal.  Its one thing to make claims, its another to provide concrete proof which I would expect to be the bar if it goes to CAT.  Like I stated, I have no real clue how UK courts work but if that is not the bar than yeah, the CMA has way to much power and the domino effect may not be what they are looking for.

The second step that MS can do is just comply with all the conditions the CMA stated was lacking in their agreements.  The other thing I wonder but not sure is could MS just leave the console business in the UK.  I know the UK is a sizeable chunk of MS console business but it would be interesting if MS value this deal more than the UK market.  Not sure if that works but MS has expand to more regions then they have before and thus could see making up the difference.

I think this logic is a little strange to me.

You clearly understand that a country can block a deal that technically concerns global affairs, but you don't seem to think it's reasonable for them to do so explicitly for those reasons.  

I would throw out there, that other countries do have laws that make it harder or prevent other countries from investing in certain areas. Even the stuff that you are concerned about does exist. Like the US basically banned companies in Taiwan, Japan from selling new microchip technology with China. It tends to be more related to high security domains. 

It's not quite the same scenario, but plenty of countries do have laws preventing companies from other countries in investing in them. 

You are not getting my point.  I am asking do the CMA have to support their claim meaning do they have to provide proof that something outside their boarders effect their market.  Its one thing to make a claim, its another to provide the proof on it.  If the CMA does not have to provide any proof of their claim then they basically can just deny something and its a total waste of time ever going to court.  I am stating if MS leave the Cloud market in the UK, does the CMA have to prove that the ABK deal as far as cloud is concerned affects their market to a degree to support blocking the deal.

All countries try to protect their market, usually they would charge tariffs and other things to even out prices and competition.



Around the Network
Ryuu96 on 11 May 2023
Idas said:

I just checked the last 3 pages and I think that this hasn't been shared yet?

This is from today, an interim order from the CMA restricting MS and ABK from acquiring an interest in each other.

Except with the prior written consent of the CMA, Activision (and Microsoft) and all members of the Group of Interconnected Bodies Corporate to which it may belong must not:

  1. (a.) acquire an Interest in Activision/Microsoft or any of its Subsidiaries;
  2. (b.) acquire an Interest in an Enterprise holding an Interest in Microsoft or carrying on the business of Activision/Microsoft from time to time; or
  3. (c.) hold an option to acquire an Interest referred to in subparagraphs (a) and (b) above.

Part of the process until there is a final determination.

____

Microsoft can't acquire a minority interest in Activision-Blizzard-King now. It was published today, coincidentally after news of the EC approving. Feels like CMA is making their "NO" very clear. They ain't going to give a shit what EC says.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 11 May 2023

PixelPirate on 11 May 2023

Well, looks like those CMA folks are feeling like the kings of the hill.



VersusEvil on 11 May 2023

Talking about this deal should be a bannable offence.



Ride The Chariot || Games Complete ‘24 Edition

G2ThaUNiT on 11 May 2023
VersusEvil said:

Talking about this deal should be a bannable offence.

You'll live

@Ryuu96 so if MS wanted to purchase a minority stake in ActiBlizz, like, 2% or something, they can't even do that?!?



G2ThaUNiT on 11 May 2023

@Spade more Japanese goodness on GP