• Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the second big swing I’ve seen the FTC take in the last few days, indicative of a change or coincidence?

    • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is the FTC under Lina Khan; she’s definitely not an ally to the tech giants

      • NightAuthor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is what I’m hearing too, but I’m skeptical. Someone in government, fighting against corporations on behalf of the people?!

        • Whirlybird
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          This case shows she’s not fighting on behalf of the people though, but on the behalf of other corporations - Sony specifically. Their entire argument was how it would hurt sony. They basically didn’t mention the consumers at all lol. It was a complete joke. At least the CMA and EU had concerns, however weak they were, around competitiveness in the cloud market which could hurt consumers.

      • Whirlybird
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Correct, but unfortunately she’s not a big fan of picking her battles well either.

        It’s all well and good to “go after big tech”, but you should only go after them when you’ve got a leg to stand on, otherwise you’re going to be made to look stupid by the ludicrously highly paid big tech lawyers. Under khan the FTC has lost almost everything they’ve tried, and most of the times you could take 1 look at their case and know they had no chance in hell.

        The Microsoft/ABK case is a perfect example. There’s no lt even the slightest hint of a monopoly or anti-competitive behaviour. Then the ftc basically made their entire argument about poor old market leader Sony potentially being hurt.

        Whoever advised them of their strategy in this case should have their credentials stripped. Who thought fighting for the market leader to maintain their dominance and to keep last place in last place was the angle they should take? They’re supposed to look out for consumers and competition, but this case did the opposite.

    • Whirlybird
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This isn’t a new swing, this is a last ditch effort. They’ve already been absolutely embarrassed in court over this case, basically laughed out.

      FTC: Microsoft owning COD will give them a monopoly!!! Poor sony will be run out of business!!! Won’t somebody think of Sony!!!

      Sony: nah we’re good even if we lose COD. We don’t think they would take it from us anyway because we make them the most money.

      All other publishers: Nah this deal is great for us as if they did take cod away it makes it easier for us to sell our games.

      Nintendo: this deal is great for us as we’ll now get more games for our players.

        • Whirlybird
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          They were and they weren’t. They literally said they don’t think Microsoft would make COD exclusive like the FTC were saying they would, and that they would be absolutely fine if Microsoft were to buy them and make all games exclusive, unlike the ftc said, but they wanted to stop the deal because of course they do, Microsoft are a competitor.

          I’m saying that even Sony disagreed with the FTCs reasons for challenging the acquisition.