Explosive Exchange: FTC Chair faces off against hostile US Congress over Microsoft-Activision merger

[Windows Central]

The tax-payer funded U.S. FTC hasn't had much luck recently. FTC Chair Lina Khan was accused of "intentionally" taking cases it knew it would lose in a fraught hearing at the U.S. House of Representatives. Watch the clips here.

Explosive Exchange: FTC Chair faces off against hostile US Congress over Microsoft-Activision merger : Read more

 

[fjtorres5591]

One amusing point about the TRO hearing: Microsoft requested the hearing take place in the DC federal court and the FTC rejected the request. They went venue shopping and chose Northern California, headquartered in SF and presided by a Biden appointed judge.

If one reads the judge's ruling, she looked at all the different FTC allegations ("Nintendo is not a competitor!") and decided that even if she accepted them all (which she pointedly didn't, not a one) they *still* hadn't proved their case.

Then, to rub it in, she summarize that the merger might be "bad for Sony but good for gamers."

The comments about the FTC purposefully choosing losing cases isn't just snark, btw. Kahn has political aspirations and declaring "current law is inadequate" is a suitable platform to run on, promising to change said laws.

Wheels within wheels within wheels.

 

[GraniteStateColin]

That question about pursuing cases that they don't expect to win is an important point in American jurisprudence. While in some scenarios we may think it's good to pursue a case regardless of the expected outcome on "principal." However, that is in not appropriate for government regulatory prosecution, where we recognize the disjointed power situation of government vs. private citizens or companies. Prosecutors have an obligation to only bring cases they believe they will win. This is at the heart of our divided government: legislation passes laws, executive branch (where FTC exists) enforces them as prioritized by the President (all of the executive branch effectively works for the one elected leader of that branch: POTUS, hence his power), and the judiciary sits in judgement for disputes and crimes.

The chief overlap is that the legislature can also delegate regulatory authority to an executive agency, like tax collection policy to the IRS or health policy to HHS or some facets of trade policy to the FTC. But these agencies are still bound to only operate within the scope of power granted to them by the legislature. What we're hearing in Kahn's words is textbook overreach.

Ideally, members of the executive should disengage themselves from their opinions and view themselves as enforcers of existing laws, whether they like or dislike those laws. That's probably tough for any of us to do perfectly (we all have opinions that we believe are more than just opinions), but what we're seeing from Kahn is an extreme antithesis of this fundamental principal intended to protect all of us from government run amok. She has admitted that she thinks the laws are inadequate and intends to set policy anyway. This shows an intent to violate the boundaries of her role.

In my opinion, that is despicable. It is exactly what is most dangerous in a government employee: attempting to use the power with which she has been entrusted to enact her own will, rather than support the laws passed by the legislature.

 

[fjtorres5591]

That question about pursuing cases that they don't expect to win is an important point in American jurisprudence. While in some scenarios we may think it's good to pursue a case regardless of the expected outcome on "principal." However, that is in not appropriate for government regulatory prosecution, where we recognize the disjointed power situation of government vs. private citizens or companies. Prosecutors have an obligation to only bring cases they believe they will win. This is at the heart of our divided government: legislation passes laws, executive branch (where FTC exists) enforces them as prioritized by the President (all of the executive branch effectively works for the one elected leader of that branch: POTUS, hence his power), and the judiciary sits in judgement for disputes and crimes.

The chief overlap is that the legislature can also delegate regulatory authority to an executive agency, like tax collection policy to the IRS or health policy to HHS or some facets of trade policy to the FTC. But these agencies are still bound to only operate within the scope of power granted to them by the legislature. What we're hearing in Kahn's words is textbook overreach.

Ideally, members of the executive should disengage themselves from their opinions and view themselves as enforcers of existing laws, whether they like or dislike those laws. That's probably tough for any of us to do perfectly (we all have opinions that we believe are more than just opinions), but what we're seeing from Kahn is an extreme antithesis of this fundamental principal intended to protect all of us from government run amok. She has admitted that she thinks the laws are inadequate and intends to set policy anyway. This shows an intent to violate the boundaries of her role.

In my opinion, that is despicable. It is exactly what is most dangerous in a government employee: attempting to use the power with which she has been entrusted to enact her own will, rather than support the laws passed by the legislature.

SCOTUS has been dealing with that lately. EPA and the Clean Water Act. Biden's vote buying. Etc.

 

[NeoMahi]

I guess those members of Congress all had stock in Microsoft that they're using Taxpayer dollars to fund that. All politicians are corrupt just like businessman. Point a finger, Congressman, and you have four fingers pointed back at you. I've worked a government job and you know how their spending is? If we don't spend this money, then they're going to readjust our budget. They didn't care how comfortable I was living when I went, they just said find something that isn't crazy priced so, I stayed in some pretty nice hotels and are pier diem.

I never argued Microsoft's other acquisitions including Zenamax, and I wouldn't argue Starfield or Redfall being exclusive to Xbox, you acquired them, it's yours to do what you want. Sony acquired Bungie, but they agreed to keep things multiplatform, that's not the issue. What I will argue is MLB dictating who Sony develops games for just because nobody else wanted to bother anymore. Phil Spencer going on about the necessity of exclusives and their importance and then he never stood up for that. He didn't tell MLB: "Hey, that's not how we do things in this industry, we can't accept that."

It's moreso things that and that Microsoft feels when they're in a tough spot, they can just buy their way out. That's what the FTC is defending. $70 billion for Activision, are they worth $70 billion? Nobody is against acquisitions, but what's happening right now is suspicious. I can't put into words to describe it but Xbox hasn't made very many good business decisions and they're at a point of desperation. Xbox, a sub company doesn't have $70 billion to buy Activision to they go to Microsoft to bail them out. That's money Microsoft has made, not Xbox. So, Xbox can use Microsofts bottomless pockets to make offers nobody else can compete with. Epic Games, obviously, bought and has been using Epic Games store to compete in a similar way and have been giving away games as an incentive to use their service. This competes with Steam, Apple Market, and Windows Games Service. So, if Xbox can just go and buy whoever they want, how can Epic or even Steam compete with that? What if Epic Games store received Call of Duty from Xbox as part of the deal, but Epic Games just gives the game away as that months free game, Xbox gamers have to pay for Game Pass to get "free" games, but Epic Game store doesn't require a subscription to get free games, that's what we're talking about here. Xbox can just buy whatever they want with Microsofts money. They knew Steam, Sony, or Nintendo would have that kind of money to get in their way. Sony or Nintendo could have a studio start developing a Call of Duty studio anytime they want, they know this. Sony knows Bungie has clout with the gaming world to make a Halo game, but a Sony doesn't dictate Bungies creative process, they let them do what they want or PlayStation could have help from Bungie to create exclusively from Bungie what 343 Industries can't do because Bungie has the formula to do just that, but Xbox doesn't have $70 billion to buy Activision, but because they're in trouble and about to sink, Microsoft's reputation is at steak. Xbox and the gaming industry were never in Bill Gates plans but because they're in gaming now, like Ted Turner challenging Vince McMahon, they can't see failure without Microsoft's name, without Bill Gates name looking bad, it's the only reason CEO Nadellya agreed to bail them out. He doesn't even know his gaming division as he appeared in court saying he doesn't want exclusives. Phil Spencer said otherwise. So if Microsoft is behind their CEO, why not start porting Gears, Halo, Flight Simulator, Forza, ya know? It's that people are upset Xbox will do nothing or consistently make more decisions, I can list them for you if you want, and then just ask for bailouts to preserve Bill Gates name, not for the good of the industry. Does PlayStation have that big of a hold on the industry? No, because Nintendo's Switch console outsells the PS5