5 ms·

> How does this make anyone feel any better? What happens after 10 years? What happens in less than 10 years if they don't abide by it? Does Activision get sp

> How does this make anyone feel any better? What happens after 10 years? What happens in less than 10 years if they don't abide by it? Does Activision get split back out? I doubt it. We're long past the point where you can just set rules/laws and companies will abide by it. We need to be at the point where we also list the punishment ahead of time.

jxramos 3y ago
that's not a bad idea, laws without punishments are kind of ambiguous I suppose. I wonder the utility of leaving this open, is it tantamount to mandatory sentencing and takes freedom away from the judge or something like that.
re-thc 3y ago
> What happens in less than 10 years if they don't abide by it? Likely nothing. I don't understand why people believe in these things. > We're long past the point where you can just set rules/laws and companies will abide by it. What's the rule / law here anyhow? There are always workarounds, e.g. it says it will keep it in parity with xbox... well what if they called a new console something else?
- stale2002 3y ago
  You know that Sony could just agree to a contract with microsoft over this right? If they write up a contract with penalty provisions, this could able be guaranteed through civil court. It is not some crazy unsolved question as to how to get a company to commit to something in the future.
- AlexandrB 3y ago
  > Likely nothing. I don't understand why people believe in these things. No kidding. They could just introduce a new game franchise called "Duty of Call - Warfare That's Modern" and make that Xbox exclusive instead. Or any number of other workarounds and sneaky tactics.
- vkou 3y ago
  > Likely nothing. I don't understand why people believe in these things. Likely Sony will take them to the cleaners.
mysterydip 3y ago
Most likely a fine far less than the money gained from not abiding by the law, if history is anything to go by.
oh_sigh 3y ago
Depends how good Sony's lawyers are. Theoretically the courts could offer an injunction preventing sale of the CoD until it is also available on whatever equivalent Playstation type system there is.
- NovaDudely 3y ago
  Sony vs MS lawyers... that would be messy... and fun to watch. grabs popocorn Would they just build a COD that is dependent on specific MS tech so they cannot release it on competing systems? Why not try and rebrand Call of Duty so that it isn't in violation? Just call it 'Duty'. It starts to get very grey very quickly.
dathinab 3y ago
You mean like Facebook/WhatsApp which committed to not do some things and that certain things aren't even technically possible (which even back then was a lie) to get the merger through in the EU and then a few years later was, oh that, yep, let's ignore it and just turn it into a long legal battle which will anyway cost us far less then what we gain from it.
- swyx 3y ago
  what has fb gained from whatsapp? theyre not charging for it right?
  - dybber 3y ago
    One big competitor less to worry about
  - Jochim 3y ago
    The phone contacts and social graph of everyone using WhatsApp.
robertlagrant 3y ago
> We're long past the point where you can just set rules/laws and companies will abide by it. We're not, but this is pretty nebulous stuff. The state blocking freely agreed transactions because it can foresee some damage is not exactly a clear cut good, other than for people who are reassured by the idea of the state as a benevolent, all-knowing mom and pop, and for the lawyers who get paid a fortune to debate past and future hypotheticals. What about this: allow the merger, and if the harm is done, the company must pay, but if the harm is not done, the state must pay?
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  Because if there is harm the companies pay so little it's just written off as cost of doing business. Yet the harms too often continue. Companies with more resources than small countries are often too big to regulate because they capture the regulators and/or the judiciary. Prevention is cheaper than treatment, especially when treatments have proven so ineffective.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > Companies with more resources than small countries are often too big to regulate because they capture the regulators and/or the judiciary. Regulatory capture is entirely the fault of the regulator. They don't have to be captured. They choose to be. A government body, funded by taxes, that decides to be captured, is a complete disgrace. People work hard to pay taxes, and they shouldn't be spent on employing people who choose to align with those they should be regulating. > Prevention is cheaper than treatment, especially when treatments have proven so ineffective. The same state that has the power to prevent has the power to treat. It chooses not to. Switching approach won't help. Getting regulators to do their jobs will.
    - paulryanrogers 3y ago
      I wish it were that simple. Sadly a large portion of US voters seem to think a revolving door with "industry experts" (i.e. insiders) is desirable. And that courts should defer to business interests above all else.

jxramos 3y ago

that's not a bad idea, laws without punishments are kind of ambiguous I suppose. I wonder the utility of leaving this open, is it tantamount to mandatory sentencing and takes freedom away from the judge or something like that.

re-thc 3y ago

> What happens in less than 10 years if they don't abide by it? Likely nothing. I don't understand why people believe in these things. > We're long past the point where you can just set rules/laws and companies will abide by it. What's the rule / law here anyhow? There are always workarounds, e.g. it says it will keep it in parity with xbox... well what if they called a new console something else?

stale2002 3y ago
You know that Sony could just agree to a contract with microsoft over this right? If they write up a contract with penalty provisions, this could able be guaranteed through civil court. It is not some crazy unsolved question as to how to get a company to commit to something in the future.
AlexandrB 3y ago
> Likely nothing. I don't understand why people believe in these things. No kidding. They could just introduce a new game franchise called "Duty of Call - Warfare That's Modern" and make that Xbox exclusive instead. Or any number of other workarounds and sneaky tactics.
vkou 3y ago
> Likely nothing. I don't understand why people believe in these things. Likely Sony will take them to the cleaners.

mysterydip 3y ago

Most likely a fine far less than the money gained from not abiding by the law, if history is anything to go by.

oh_sigh 3y ago

Depends how good Sony's lawyers are. Theoretically the courts could offer an injunction preventing sale of the CoD until it is also available on whatever equivalent Playstation type system there is.

NovaDudely 3y ago
Sony vs MS lawyers... that would be messy... and fun to watch. grabs popocorn Would they just build a COD that is dependent on specific MS tech so they cannot release it on competing systems? Why not try and rebrand Call of Duty so that it isn't in violation? Just call it 'Duty'. It starts to get very grey very quickly.

dathinab 3y ago

You mean like Facebook/WhatsApp which committed to not do some things and that certain things aren't even technically possible (which even back then was a lie) to get the merger through in the EU and then a few years later was, oh that, yep, let's ignore it and just turn it into a long legal battle which will anyway cost us far less then what we gain from it.

swyx 3y ago
what has fb gained from whatsapp? theyre not charging for it right?
- dybber 3y ago
  One big competitor less to worry about
- Jochim 3y ago
  The phone contacts and social graph of everyone using WhatsApp.

robertlagrant 3y ago

> We're long past the point where you can just set rules/laws and companies will abide by it. We're not, but this is pretty nebulous stuff. The state blocking freely agreed transactions because it can foresee some damage is not exactly a clear cut good, other than for people who are reassured by the idea of the state as a benevolent, all-knowing mom and pop, and for the lawyers who get paid a fortune to debate past and future hypotheticals. What about this: allow the merger, and if the harm is done, the company must pay, but if the harm is not done, the state must pay?

paulryanrogers 3y ago
Because if there is harm the companies pay so little it's just written off as cost of doing business. Yet the harms too often continue. Companies with more resources than small countries are often too big to regulate because they capture the regulators and/or the judiciary. Prevention is cheaper than treatment, especially when treatments have proven so ineffective.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > Companies with more resources than small countries are often too big to regulate because they capture the regulators and/or the judiciary. Regulatory capture is entirely the fault of the regulator. They don't have to be captured. They choose to be. A government body, funded by taxes, that decides to be captured, is a complete disgrace. People work hard to pay taxes, and they shouldn't be spent on employing people who choose to align with those they should be regulating. > Prevention is cheaper than treatment, especially when treatments have proven so ineffective. The same state that has the power to prevent has the power to treat. It chooses not to. Switching approach won't help. Getting regulators to do their jobs will.
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    I wish it were that simple. Sadly a large portion of US voters seem to think a revolving door with "industry experts" (i.e. insiders) is desirable. And that courts should defer to business interests above all else.