2 ms·

I'm actually not convinced this is going to go very well. The FTC for the last few years has talked a big game, and hired people who have talked a big game; but

I'm actually not convinced this is going to go very well. The FTC for the last few years has talked a big game, and hired people who have talked a big game; but the actual lawsuits have been pretty mediocre and occasionally even poorly thought through. An example lately is their battle with Microsoft to block the ActiVision acquisition which, the general consensus of observers seems to be, isn't going very well and the hope of the FTC getting their injunction is dwindling. Another example would be the FTC's recent failure to prevent Facebook's acquisition of Within.

majormajor 3y ago
The FTC shifted under Khan from a posture of "don't bring a case if it's not bulletproof" to one of "be willing to litigate even on things we might lose" to be less of a pushover. See discussion and quotes here: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/07/technology/meta-vr-antitrust-ftc.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/07/technology/meta-vr-antitr... I think this is probably wise even if they don't win much: 1) it'll set the boundaries of how courts interpret the current laws, which will inform if there are unpopular holes that could become part of political platforms going forward 2) it'll add that much uncertainty and "cost of doing business" legal expense to companies playing fast and loose in other novel ways because they've known they're unlikely to get challenged
- 8note 3y ago
  3) it'll show lawmakers where the laws are good and where they need changes
CPLX 3y ago
Are you actually following the MS/Activision testimony? They've been getting absolutely crucified, there are multiple examples of blatantly illegal emails and discussions of anti-competitive behavior being introduced on the stand. The only real question right now is if the judge whose son quite literally works for Microsoft (!!) will decide that laws don't matter, which has been the main issue with antitrust enforcement in the recent past.
- granzymes 3y ago
  Her son working for another Microsoft division isn't an issue and notably neither the FTC nor private plaintiffs whose case the judge previously dismissed even asked her to recuse.

majormajor 3y ago

The FTC shifted under Khan from a posture of "don't bring a case if it's not bulletproof" to one of "be willing to litigate even on things we might lose" to be less of a pushover. See discussion and quotes here: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/07/technology/meta-vr-antitrust-ftc.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/07/technology/meta-vr-antitr... I think this is probably wise even if they don't win much: 1) it'll set the boundaries of how courts interpret the current laws, which will inform if there are unpopular holes that could become part of political platforms going forward 2) it'll add that much uncertainty and "cost of doing business" legal expense to companies playing fast and loose in other novel ways because they've known they're unlikely to get challenged

8note 3y ago
3) it'll show lawmakers where the laws are good and where they need changes

CPLX 3y ago

Are you actually following the MS/Activision testimony? They've been getting absolutely crucified, there are multiple examples of blatantly illegal emails and discussions of anti-competitive behavior being introduced on the stand. The only real question right now is if the judge whose son quite literally works for Microsoft (!!) will decide that laws don't matter, which has been the main issue with antitrust enforcement in the recent past.

granzymes 3y ago
Her son working for another Microsoft division isn't an issue and notably neither the FTC nor private plaintiffs whose case the judge previously dismissed even asked her to recuse.