4 ms·

> That’s an absurdly long time to be operating a business in limbo, and I have to assume it’s the regulators dragging their feet since the companies have every

> That’s an absurdly long time to be operating a business in limbo, and I have to assume it’s the regulators dragging their feet since the companies have every incentive to move quickly. Your understanding here is fundamentally wrong. Regulators in the US said very early on they were against this merger and were going to fight it. So most of what goes on in the meantime is Adobe and Figma (a) seeing if they can give something up to appease regulators (e.g. it's common for regulators to only sign off on a deal if one of the companies sells off some assets) or (b) decide if they're going to fight the regulators in court. Your idea of the regulators just "dragging their feet" is incorrect

camhart 3y ago
It seems wrong/illegal that they can just "decide they're against the merger" and sink it by dragging their feet. Its either legal or not. I haven't dug into the details, but based on this one line alone it sounds like this is abuse of power.
- true_religion 3y ago
  It seems they are saying the merger as is will be illegal, however they give both companies some time to do something that will make the deal work. 15 months is a short time if you have to sell enterprise assets or let competition emerge to show the merger isn’t a danger to the market. If companies want a fast answer they can ask for one and it will be no. All said I do not worry about if billion dollar companies are being fairly treated. They have the capital and expertise to protect their own interests and it’s not worth it to preemptively fight on their behalf.
- SomeCallMeTim 3y ago
  Another way to say "decide they're against the merger" is "evaluate the situation and make a timely ruling that they oppose the merger as illegal." Which is exactly what they were supposed to do. Adobe and Figma tried to argue with the regulators or find a compromise, but couldn't come up with a solution that satisfied all parties. If you try to extract subtle implications from the phrasing of a commenter on HN, you're likely to jump to the wrong conclusion.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    But that's the point: it's not timely. It's a massive millstone to Figma, who now have to figure out what to do with their pixel-perfect UI designer collaboration tool in a world of an and coming Adobe Firefly.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  > Its either legal or not. Perhaps I should introduce you to the legal system? Adobe proposes the merger, DoJ says they will sue to stop it. At that point, if the parties can't come to an agreement, it goes to the courts. I think it's fine to argue our legal system is too slow, but again, this idea that regulators are just "dragging their feet" to slow things down is fundamentally incorrect. Regulators announced quite quickly they would fight this deal.
- Matticus_Rex 3y ago
  Welcome to the world of antitrust, where almost everything is in a grey area and vibes-based. Never seen anyone who studied this area (and who didn't already work for a related Federal agency) who didn't conclude that this was a big mess, no matter their opinions on how it should work.
- happytiger 3y ago
  They literally indicated they were against it from early on, but Adobe tried to brute force it through and after careful review they said, “still no.” Also, it’s not as if Figma has been sitting around all this time waiting for their dear Adobe to close. My understanding is that more than 500 new people have been hired since the deal was announced (total is now like 1300+) and growth continues. I’m just glad Figma can now move on without having to do some “roadmap alignment exercise” or doing the “gradually falling apart” that so many Adobe acquisitions have done. The real thought should be why Adobe was willing to pay twice the recent valuation to take Figma out as a competitor, and why only European regulators had a problem with it. They have a tendency to kneecap anyone who’s a substantive threat to their market, and we need viable competition in the space. It may not have been particularly timely in terms of review, but it was never inconsistent. And we have no idea what kinds of delays were put on the deal, including delays from the Figma and Adobe teams.
matthewowen 3y ago
This is a really inaccurate factual understanding of the sequence of events here: I would urge you to look at the actual timeline of events around the CMA and the DOJ before you keep spreading it.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  This article about the DoJ prepping to sue to stop the deal is from February: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-23/doj-preparing-suit-to-block-adobe-s-20-billion-deal-for-figma?embedded-checkout=true https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-23/doj-prepa... The idea, proposed by the comment I was responding to, that regulators were just twiddling their thumbs and then only gave a thumbs down to Adobe after 15 months is wrong and completely misunderstands how the regulatory process for merger approval works.
  - jasonlotito 3y ago
    It's actually much earlier than that. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38685644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38685644 tl;dr: Their was significant action less than a month after the announcement was made.
  - matthewowen 3y ago
    It also said the lawsuit would be filed “in February or March”, but it was never actually filed, so what factual relevance do you think that article really has? Moreover, the DOJ wins less than one in three of these kinds of cases: the US system is an adversarial one where the courts decide so it makes no sense to immediately abandon in the face of DOJ opposition. What is also true is that the uk finished its phase 1 review (where they decide to send it for further phase 2 review) in June, so 9 months after the deal was announced. Phase 2 leads to changes in about 50% of deals. The phase 2 deadline was late February 2024, about 18 months later. I don't think any of this is indicative of anyone sitting on their hands or twiddling their thumbs, but it’s clearly a slow process and that uncertainty clearly isn’t good for the parties involved.
- jasonlotito 3y ago
sklargh 3y ago
The regulators moved fast. I had detailed conversations with regulators about this merger weeks after it was filed. They moved extremely quickly to signal that they were going to block it.

camhart 3y ago

It seems wrong/illegal that they can just "decide they're against the merger" and sink it by dragging their feet. Its either legal or not. I haven't dug into the details, but based on this one line alone it sounds like this is abuse of power.

true_religion 3y ago
It seems they are saying the merger as is will be illegal, however they give both companies some time to do something that will make the deal work. 15 months is a short time if you have to sell enterprise assets or let competition emerge to show the merger isn’t a danger to the market. If companies want a fast answer they can ask for one and it will be no. All said I do not worry about if billion dollar companies are being fairly treated. They have the capital and expertise to protect their own interests and it’s not worth it to preemptively fight on their behalf.
SomeCallMeTim 3y ago
Another way to say "decide they're against the merger" is "evaluate the situation and make a timely ruling that they oppose the merger as illegal." Which is exactly what they were supposed to do. Adobe and Figma tried to argue with the regulators or find a compromise, but couldn't come up with a solution that satisfied all parties. If you try to extract subtle implications from the phrasing of a commenter on HN, you're likely to jump to the wrong conclusion.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  But that's the point: it's not timely. It's a massive millstone to Figma, who now have to figure out what to do with their pixel-perfect UI designer collaboration tool in a world of an and coming Adobe Firefly.
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
> Its either legal or not. Perhaps I should introduce you to the legal system? Adobe proposes the merger, DoJ says they will sue to stop it. At that point, if the parties can't come to an agreement, it goes to the courts. I think it's fine to argue our legal system is too slow, but again, this idea that regulators are just "dragging their feet" to slow things down is fundamentally incorrect. Regulators announced quite quickly they would fight this deal.
Matticus_Rex 3y ago
Welcome to the world of antitrust, where almost everything is in a grey area and vibes-based. Never seen anyone who studied this area (and who didn't already work for a related Federal agency) who didn't conclude that this was a big mess, no matter their opinions on how it should work.
happytiger 3y ago
They literally indicated they were against it from early on, but Adobe tried to brute force it through and after careful review they said, “still no.” Also, it’s not as if Figma has been sitting around all this time waiting for their dear Adobe to close. My understanding is that more than 500 new people have been hired since the deal was announced (total is now like 1300+) and growth continues. I’m just glad Figma can now move on without having to do some “roadmap alignment exercise” or doing the “gradually falling apart” that so many Adobe acquisitions have done. The real thought should be why Adobe was willing to pay twice the recent valuation to take Figma out as a competitor, and why only European regulators had a problem with it. They have a tendency to kneecap anyone who’s a substantive threat to their market, and we need viable competition in the space. It may not have been particularly timely in terms of review, but it was never inconsistent. And we have no idea what kinds of delays were put on the deal, including delays from the Figma and Adobe teams.

matthewowen 3y ago

This is a really inaccurate factual understanding of the sequence of events here: I would urge you to look at the actual timeline of events around the CMA and the DOJ before you keep spreading it.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
This article about the DoJ prepping to sue to stop the deal is from February: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-23/doj-preparing-suit-to-block-adobe-s-20-billion-deal-for-figma?embedded-checkout=true https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-23/doj-prepa... The idea, proposed by the comment I was responding to, that regulators were just twiddling their thumbs and then only gave a thumbs down to Adobe after 15 months is wrong and completely misunderstands how the regulatory process for merger approval works.
- jasonlotito 3y ago
  It's actually much earlier than that. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38685644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38685644 tl;dr: Their was significant action less than a month after the announcement was made.
- matthewowen 3y ago
  It also said the lawsuit would be filed “in February or March”, but it was never actually filed, so what factual relevance do you think that article really has? Moreover, the DOJ wins less than one in three of these kinds of cases: the US system is an adversarial one where the courts decide so it makes no sense to immediately abandon in the face of DOJ opposition. What is also true is that the uk finished its phase 1 review (where they decide to send it for further phase 2 review) in June, so 9 months after the deal was announced. Phase 2 leads to changes in about 50% of deals. The phase 2 deadline was late February 2024, about 18 months later. I don't think any of this is indicative of anyone sitting on their hands or twiddling their thumbs, but it’s clearly a slow process and that uncertainty clearly isn’t good for the parties involved.
jasonlotito 3y ago

sklargh 3y ago

The regulators moved fast. I had detailed conversations with regulators about this merger weeks after it was filed. They moved extremely quickly to signal that they were going to block it.