I don't think a HALO is anti-competitive if the IP licence is non-exclusive as TFA says. The only exclusivity involved is that only (really) one company can hir

I don't think a HALO is anti-competitive if the IP licence is non-exclusive as TFA says. The only exclusivity involved is that only (really) one company can hire a given team, but hiring is already exclusive in nature, and not considered anti-competitive. (Am I missing something on how a HALO is exclusive? To be honest I was surprised when I read in TFA that the IP licence is typically non-exclusive.) If companies think the paperwork is too onerous for acquihires (convincing regulators the exclusivity inherent with acquisitions isn't creating an illegal monopoly), and they can get a satsifactory result with a non-exclusive HALO (which regulators therefore don't need to check), why shouldn't they do a HALO instead?