4 ms·

Spoilers: "The contents of the message are redacted, but the plaintiffs say [...]" The email may well prove that Microsoft has this plan, I certainly wouldn't

Spoilers: "The contents of the message are redacted, but the plaintiffs say [...]" The email may well prove that Microsoft has this plan, I certainly wouldn't put it past Microsoft. It is in the established nature of Microsoft to behave in such anti-competitive ways, the shoe fits. But when the plantiff is using circumstantial evidence to deduce what the email must have contained, I think it's quite a stretch to say the email "proves" anything.

planede 3y ago
In my reading the plaintiff does have the contents of the email, it's in their filing. The contents of the email within the filing itself seem to be redacted from the public.
dommer 3y ago
I'm sure that is the modus operandi for any business. That is, to find ways to give the business an advantage over any competition...and hopefully put them out of business in the process. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- BiteCode_dev 3y ago
  It's one thing to strategize your opponent demise by creating better products, it's another to use patents, monopolies and market manipulations.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    you forgot to finish with "as a previously convicted monopolist"
    - clnq 3y ago
      And as a business that has publicly stated that they don't think they can compete on quality of their products - https://www.eurogamer.net/phil-spencer-there-is-no-world-where-starfield-is-an-11-out-of-10-and-people-start-selling-their-ps5s#comments https://www.eurogamer.net/phil-spencer-there-is-no-world-whe....
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- CoastalCoder 3y ago
  > I'm sure that is the modus operandi for any business. Probably depends on the scope / kind of business. And maybe the kind of people running it? E.g., my wife has no desire to grow her photography business (a sole proprietorship). She's content for it to be a source of income for however long she wants to keep doing it.
  - dommer 3y ago
    Fair point. I meant no disrespect to those making a `honest` living. A vast difference between the 100m of sole proprietors of the world and the LLC.
  - ussrlongbow 3y ago
    It is not business, it is being self-employed.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - reaperducer 3y ago
      The I.R.S. and every other federal agency down to the Bureau of Labor Statistics disagree with you.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    So maybe it’s the modus operandi of any corporation
- Waterluvian 3y ago
  I think the core of it is that we want businesses to win by striving to offer a better product. Not to manipulate the marketplace conditions so that they don’t need to.
  - aerio 3y ago
    Microsoft has been the main driver in the movement of cross-play between platforms (Xbox, PS, Nintendo), which can only be described as a huge good for gamers of all types. Sony on the other hand, has been trying to keep their platform closed. https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2022/03/14/playstation-seems-to-understand-its-lost-the-crossplay-war-as-wonderlands-indicates/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2022/03/14/playstatio... >Sony's public rationale of being skeptical of crossplay was stated to be about the “risks” of exposing Sony players to non-PSN markets, but really, it seems to just have been about trying to throw its big sales lead around.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
mdasen 3y ago
The email is also from 2019. It might still be worthwhile evidence, but it wouldn't really pertain to the Activision deal in particular. If someone at Microsoft had sent an email a month before the Activision deal saying, "we want to crush the next-gen Playstation," that could be evidence that the Activision deal is part of a plan to monopolize the market, but it could also simply be somewhat random nonsense puffery talk like when someone says "our graphics blow away the competition!" Given that it was sent back in 2019, the distance in time from the Activision deal makes it potentially less relevant. The allegation is that the email is "uncontroverted evidence that Microsoft had the intention to put its main competition, the Sony PlayStation, out of the market." What I want to know is whether the email is a somewhat innocuous, "we want to relegate the PlayStation to the status of an also-ran while we become the premier gaming console" or something more serious like "our strategy to drive Sony out of the market is by buying up independent publishers and then making their games platform-exclusives to the Xbox." For the first one, I'm sure I could dredge up communications at any company that are similar. For the second, it shows a clear danger to competition and the market.
- etempleton 3y ago
  Yes, it is a bit silly to link the two. Microsoft wants to beat Sony. No kidding. Unless it is a detailed plan of how to push Sony out of the market by acquiring game studios I don't think it has much relevance. Of course the strategy is to gain market share and of course the main reason of acquiring game studios is to gain more market share.
- rcme 3y ago
  I don’t think a few years makes that big of a difference. What if the email says “We can crush Playstation by buying Activision after their next gen console comes out”? That seems like it would be pretty damning.
flutas 3y ago
> But when the plantiff is using circumstantial evidence to deduce what the email must have contained That's not what's happening. It's sealed to the public, not the lawyers. The article even mentions this: > The passage appears to be from Exhibit K, a sealed document that the gamers’ lawyers and Microsoft’s attorneys have been arguing over. > In legal documents, Microsoft characterized the email as an “internal exchange” that should remain sealed; a Microsoft rep declined to comment further.
- Natsu 3y ago
  Doesn't change our perspective, I'll wait and see how this gets ruled on before trying to make up my mind. I can easily believe that Microsoft would do such a thing, I mean it has repeatedly done so, but I don't like taking one party to a lawsuit's word about evidence I cannot see as fact. I'll see what the judge says, or if they decide to unseal this one.
RC_ITR 3y ago
Omitting “lawyers:” from the headline seems like a pretty clear violation of rules here.
AlexandrB 3y ago
> It is in the established nature of Microsoft to behave in such anti-competitive ways, the shoe fits. This is good enough reason to block the merger IMHO. I'm glad to see regulators taking a more active role.

planede 3y ago

In my reading the plaintiff does have the contents of the email, it's in their filing. The contents of the email within the filing itself seem to be redacted from the public.

dommer 3y ago

I'm sure that is the modus operandi for any business. That is, to find ways to give the business an advantage over any competition...and hopefully put them out of business in the process. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

BiteCode_dev 3y ago
It's one thing to strategize your opponent demise by creating better products, it's another to use patents, monopolies and market manipulations.
- pixl97 3y ago
  you forgot to finish with "as a previously convicted monopolist"
  - clnq 3y ago
    And as a business that has publicly stated that they don't think they can compete on quality of their products - https://www.eurogamer.net/phil-spencer-there-is-no-world-where-starfield-is-an-11-out-of-10-and-people-start-selling-their-ps5s#comments https://www.eurogamer.net/phil-spencer-there-is-no-world-whe....
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
CoastalCoder 3y ago
> I'm sure that is the modus operandi for any business. Probably depends on the scope / kind of business. And maybe the kind of people running it? E.g., my wife has no desire to grow her photography business (a sole proprietorship). She's content for it to be a source of income for however long she wants to keep doing it.
- dommer 3y ago
  Fair point. I meant no disrespect to those making a `honest` living. A vast difference between the 100m of sole proprietors of the world and the LLC.
- ussrlongbow 3y ago
  It is not business, it is being self-employed.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - reaperducer 3y ago
    The I.R.S. and every other federal agency down to the Bureau of Labor Statistics disagree with you.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  So maybe it’s the modus operandi of any corporation
Waterluvian 3y ago
I think the core of it is that we want businesses to win by striving to offer a better product. Not to manipulate the marketplace conditions so that they don’t need to.
- aerio 3y ago
  Microsoft has been the main driver in the movement of cross-play between platforms (Xbox, PS, Nintendo), which can only be described as a huge good for gamers of all types. Sony on the other hand, has been trying to keep their platform closed. https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2022/03/14/playstation-seems-to-understand-its-lost-the-crossplay-war-as-wonderlands-indicates/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2022/03/14/playstatio... >Sony's public rationale of being skeptical of crossplay was stated to be about the “risks” of exposing Sony players to non-PSN markets, but really, it seems to just have been about trying to throw its big sales lead around.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

mdasen 3y ago

The email is also from 2019. It might still be worthwhile evidence, but it wouldn't really pertain to the Activision deal in particular. If someone at Microsoft had sent an email a month before the Activision deal saying, "we want to crush the next-gen Playstation," that could be evidence that the Activision deal is part of a plan to monopolize the market, but it could also simply be somewhat random nonsense puffery talk like when someone says "our graphics blow away the competition!" Given that it was sent back in 2019, the distance in time from the Activision deal makes it potentially less relevant. The allegation is that the email is "uncontroverted evidence that Microsoft had the intention to put its main competition, the Sony PlayStation, out of the market." What I want to know is whether the email is a somewhat innocuous, "we want to relegate the PlayStation to the status of an also-ran while we become the premier gaming console" or something more serious like "our strategy to drive Sony out of the market is by buying up independent publishers and then making their games platform-exclusives to the Xbox." For the first one, I'm sure I could dredge up communications at any company that are similar. For the second, it shows a clear danger to competition and the market.

etempleton 3y ago
Yes, it is a bit silly to link the two. Microsoft wants to beat Sony. No kidding. Unless it is a detailed plan of how to push Sony out of the market by acquiring game studios I don't think it has much relevance. Of course the strategy is to gain market share and of course the main reason of acquiring game studios is to gain more market share.
rcme 3y ago
I don’t think a few years makes that big of a difference. What if the email says “We can crush Playstation by buying Activision after their next gen console comes out”? That seems like it would be pretty damning.

flutas 3y ago

> But when the plantiff is using circumstantial evidence to deduce what the email must have contained That's not what's happening. It's sealed to the public, not the lawyers. The article even mentions this: > The passage appears to be from Exhibit K, a sealed document that the gamers’ lawyers and Microsoft’s attorneys have been arguing over. > In legal documents, Microsoft characterized the email as an “internal exchange” that should remain sealed; a Microsoft rep declined to comment further.

Natsu 3y ago
Doesn't change our perspective, I'll wait and see how this gets ruled on before trying to make up my mind. I can easily believe that Microsoft would do such a thing, I mean it has repeatedly done so, but I don't like taking one party to a lawsuit's word about evidence I cannot see as fact. I'll see what the judge says, or if they decide to unseal this one.

RC_ITR 3y ago

Omitting “lawyers:” from the headline seems like a pretty clear violation of rules here.

AlexandrB 3y ago

> It is in the established nature of Microsoft to behave in such anti-competitive ways, the shoe fits. This is good enough reason to block the merger IMHO. I'm glad to see regulators taking a more active role.