112
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
112 points (96.7% liked)
Gaming
20180 readers
42 users here now
Sub for any gaming related content!
Rules:
- 1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
- 2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
- 3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
As if they would care. What is the FTC going to do about it? Most likely do nothing, or issue a stern warning.
This news story is literally about the FTC actively suing for injunctive relief; the "complaint" in question is actually a formal legal letter addressed to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court.
Edit: fixed typo
Yes, of course they have complained to the courts. That's not the point. This simply will go nowhere, or do you expect that the court will somehow separate Activision out of Microsofts hands again to fix this? Or punish the managers at Microsoft and make them withdraw the execution plan to remove redundant jobs?
At the end of it, Microsoft will eventually pay a small, symbolic sum which they consider "cost of conducting business". Nothing more.
That is moving the goalposts. In your other comment, you said, "What is the FTC going to do about it? Most likely do nothing, or issue a stern warning." I have demonstrated that they are doing neither of these things but instead are going through the courts to get injunctive relief.
If the appellate court decides that the lower court erred in its reasoning, then there is no reason why it could not issue such an order. It is not like this would be the first time that the government broke up a company.
There is no reason why the court could not issue an injunction preventing it from executing this plan until the proceeding concludes.
If the FTC considered this to be a sufficient remedy then they probably would have settled with Microsoft by now rather than taking this to the courts.
As pessimistic as it sounds, I think you're right. There's likely some back pay they will have to give to the workforce they fired, which is a pittance compared to what they stand to earn as they milk their purchase dry.
If the appellate court is unhappy with the lower court's ruling, then there is no reason for it not to reverse it and tell Microsoft to stop the process of merging with Activision until the proceedings have completed. Admittedly this outcome might be inconvenient for Microsoft and Activison, but it is not the job of the court to care about this.