Talk:Acquisition of Activision Blizzard by Microsoft

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 9 December 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus, if and when the acquisition goes through, the article can be moved back. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Acquisition of Activision Blizzard by Microsoft → Proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard by Microsoft – As this one may not make it through regulations (see FTC Seeks to Block Microsoft Corp.’s Acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Inc.), it may be best that we don't get ahead of ourselves, referring to this as a "proposed acquisition" until it actually gets approval (WP:CRYSTALBALL). DecafPotato (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Reaonable. If it still goes through we can move back. --Masem (t) 01:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't know why this wasn't created at proposed. So far that's all it is, proposed. If it actually goes through then the current title is appropriate. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 01:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Since the FTC is formally challenging, let's move it to proposed. This is a good necessary measure to future proof the article in case the FTC wins. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd go ahead and do it: unambiguously the right move! — Mainly 19:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per above. Fun Is Optional (talk page) (please ping on reply) 23:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So the new standard set by Twitter's acquisition is that we put "proposed" before it is finished and remove it when it is completed? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mellohi!, yeah, that seems reasonable, at the very least for acquisitions (like Twitter and this one) with some form of opposal. DecafPotato (talk) 05:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FTC Response - messy writing[edit]

The section describing the FTC's response is extremely unclear in spots, and also contains some odd grammatical errors ("and in there's of the Bethesda games," "Elder Scroll Online").

It starts out well enough, but kind of devolves into a rambling back-and-forth rehash of each side's filings without any synthesis of the information or overarching point - seems to assume a lot of familiarity with minutiae on the part of the reader and the result is less than illuminating for someone not already following the issue closely. 12.249.24.134 (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the grammar, but the section doesn't gabe a conclusion yet because the case is ongoing. We anticipate adding something once the situation changes. Masem (t) 17:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Breakup fee[edit]

"The FTC requested a temporary injunction to block the merger on June 12, 2023, as the trial has been scheduled after the target July 18 date for closure of the merger, after which while the merger can continue, Microsoft would owe Activision Blizzard a $3 billion fee"

The (reverse) breakup fee will be owed by Microsoft only when the two companies fail to renegotiate new terms past the deadline (i.e. the acquisition fails). The article implies incorrectly that the breakup fee is owed if the acquisition doesn't close by July 18, even if the acquisition can proceed. Ptrnext (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft v. FTC[edit]

Change the United States red to green. Gamer27442 (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FTC didn't lose their case, they only were not able to get an injunction to stop the merger. Masem (t) 12:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New info came in today: https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/14/23794707/microsoft-activision-blizzard-ftc-acquisition-appeal-loses Urbanracer34 (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We've got it included. This still leaves the base case to be heard at the district court - just that unless FTC goes to the Supreme Court, there's nothing now to stop the merger from proceeding. But we have to wait until the companies pull the trigger. Masem (t) 00:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2023[edit]

The FTC lost their injuction in court therefore

Change the Status in the Regulatory response for the United States should be modified to Approved. [1] [2]
Goodguy140 (talk) 05:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Not done The FTC lost their bid to try to get an injunction on the merge before the merge happened; they failed. But FTC still has an open case that will be heard in full in the next few months, just that that will very likely be after the merge happens. --Masem (t) 12:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2023/07/15/three-strikes-and-the-ftc-is-out-a-third-loss-means-microsoft-can-soon-close-the-activision-deal
  2. ^ https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/14/23794707/microsoft-activision-blizzard-ftc-acquisition-appeal-loses
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acquisition_of_Activision_Blizzard_by_Microsoft&oldid=1204495607"