I think the claim that the FTC losing will put pressure on the CMA appeal process misunderstands what the remit of the CAT is. That said, I think an interesting dynamic may come if Microsoft decides to pursue the acquisition in defiance of the CMA, but at the moment I think that's more bluster than anything else.
I strongly agree that Microsoft is winning in the federal district court proceedings, and that the likely outome is that the federal district court will deny the preliminary injunctive relief requested by the FTC.
But, I think both sides legal counsel are doing competent work. Unfortunately for the FTC, the US antitrust law regarding vertical mergers would have to be radically changed in order for the FTC to prevail. My assessment is based on my review of the current case and the US antitrust case law, as well as general legal knowledge gained in my career as a litigation attorney in hundreds of complex major cases, including two merit wins at the Supreme Court of the United States.
> And adding insult to injury, the judge intervened in the FTC’s cross-examinations, as its lawyers seemed to lose focus in their questioning. It makes an overall weak impression.
Getting your info from Microsoft lobbyists (Florian Mueller) or hearsay is poor form. If you had listened to the case hearing, the Judge cut the FTC lawyer off after the 3rd time the FTC lawyer prompted Phil to make an oath, which said lawyer did to make a mockery of it. 1st, Phil's oath has no mentioning of the terms, 2nd Phil's oath only included COD, and 3rd there was no mentioning of cloud service parity.
Phil's oath is meaningless, as the FTC lawyer easily pointed out, as Phil Spencer cannot singelhandedly bind the entirety of MSFT.
> Approval in the US will put pressure on the appeal that is currently underway in the UK following a block of the merger by the Competition & Markets Authority there. With a win in hand at home, overcoming the block overseas starts to look like a formality.
Nonsense, and just once again shows your lack of knowledge in anti-trust. The FTC was never a deal killer for this and most mergers, since the US courts are so corporate friendly (though that is slowly changing). The FTC is only a real deal killer when it can draw the process over multiple years, the sheer threat of that killing many mergers.
The CMA was and has been the deal killer. As long as the CMA stands its grounds, this deal is dead and the CMA has a very strong track record of standing their final report decision even after a CAT remittal.
> Both of them have engaged with me on analyses I presented to them. They are smart, detail-oriented, well-informed, and not afraid of confrontation.
Hate to break it to you, but judging from your substack pieces, you are overestimating yourself.
You're not able to ask the hard hitting questions to Xbox leadership.
> What the FTC needs is a resounding win
Not at all. You see if you actually paid attention to anti-trust you would know the FTC (and DOJ) have killed more mergers in just two years than many 4 year administrations have done in their entire lifetime. This isn't even counting the FTC having another 9 cases already lined up this year, and we're only half way through the year, or the dozen plus non-merger wins the FTC has had (banning non competes, cutting insulin prices, prosecuting collusion) or how influential the FTC has been on other regulators, like the CMA.
Wall Street is shook. M&A is crashingm, deals are dying at the boardroom on anti-trust alone. Corporate lawyers are angry and upset. Economists, political pundits, corporate media arms, tools of the monopolist, are throwing a fit.
Good.
> I’ll leave it to speculation whether that was already in the works or if, in fact, the FTC’s pressure accelerated that process, thereby making it a clear win for the government agency and evidence of its efficacy.
MSFT had no prior agreement with the CWA before it was going to get sued by the FTC. The FTC has already seen multiple times corporations lobbying unions to advocate for their anti-competitive mergers (the irony) in a desperate attempt to earn som political goodwill.
It seems many do not get it. Lina Khan herself called the corporate world out on this, in the WSJ no less.
"The FTC is law enforcement. The antitrust laws don’t permit us to turn a blind eye to an illegal deal just because the parties commit to some unrelated social benefit."
I think the claim that the FTC losing will put pressure on the CMA appeal process misunderstands what the remit of the CAT is. That said, I think an interesting dynamic may come if Microsoft decides to pursue the acquisition in defiance of the CMA, but at the moment I think that's more bluster than anything else.
I strongly agree that Microsoft is winning in the federal district court proceedings, and that the likely outome is that the federal district court will deny the preliminary injunctive relief requested by the FTC.
But, I think both sides legal counsel are doing competent work. Unfortunately for the FTC, the US antitrust law regarding vertical mergers would have to be radically changed in order for the FTC to prevail. My assessment is based on my review of the current case and the US antitrust case law, as well as general legal knowledge gained in my career as a litigation attorney in hundreds of complex major cases, including two merit wins at the Supreme Court of the United States.
> And adding insult to injury, the judge intervened in the FTC’s cross-examinations, as its lawyers seemed to lose focus in their questioning. It makes an overall weak impression.
Getting your info from Microsoft lobbyists (Florian Mueller) or hearsay is poor form. If you had listened to the case hearing, the Judge cut the FTC lawyer off after the 3rd time the FTC lawyer prompted Phil to make an oath, which said lawyer did to make a mockery of it. 1st, Phil's oath has no mentioning of the terms, 2nd Phil's oath only included COD, and 3rd there was no mentioning of cloud service parity.
Phil's oath is meaningless, as the FTC lawyer easily pointed out, as Phil Spencer cannot singelhandedly bind the entirety of MSFT.
> Approval in the US will put pressure on the appeal that is currently underway in the UK following a block of the merger by the Competition & Markets Authority there. With a win in hand at home, overcoming the block overseas starts to look like a formality.
Nonsense, and just once again shows your lack of knowledge in anti-trust. The FTC was never a deal killer for this and most mergers, since the US courts are so corporate friendly (though that is slowly changing). The FTC is only a real deal killer when it can draw the process over multiple years, the sheer threat of that killing many mergers.
The CMA was and has been the deal killer. As long as the CMA stands its grounds, this deal is dead and the CMA has a very strong track record of standing their final report decision even after a CAT remittal.
> Both of them have engaged with me on analyses I presented to them. They are smart, detail-oriented, well-informed, and not afraid of confrontation.
Hate to break it to you, but judging from your substack pieces, you are overestimating yourself.
You're not able to ask the hard hitting questions to Xbox leadership.
> What the FTC needs is a resounding win
Not at all. You see if you actually paid attention to anti-trust you would know the FTC (and DOJ) have killed more mergers in just two years than many 4 year administrations have done in their entire lifetime. This isn't even counting the FTC having another 9 cases already lined up this year, and we're only half way through the year, or the dozen plus non-merger wins the FTC has had (banning non competes, cutting insulin prices, prosecuting collusion) or how influential the FTC has been on other regulators, like the CMA.
Wall Street is shook. M&A is crashingm, deals are dying at the boardroom on anti-trust alone. Corporate lawyers are angry and upset. Economists, political pundits, corporate media arms, tools of the monopolist, are throwing a fit.
Good.
> I’ll leave it to speculation whether that was already in the works or if, in fact, the FTC’s pressure accelerated that process, thereby making it a clear win for the government agency and evidence of its efficacy.
MSFT had no prior agreement with the CWA before it was going to get sued by the FTC. The FTC has already seen multiple times corporations lobbying unions to advocate for their anti-competitive mergers (the irony) in a desperate attempt to earn som political goodwill.
It seems many do not get it. Lina Khan herself called the corporate world out on this, in the WSJ no less.
"The FTC is law enforcement. The antitrust laws don’t permit us to turn a blind eye to an illegal deal just because the parties commit to some unrelated social benefit."