• magnetosphere@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Microsoft reneged on promises it made in court…

    If those promises aren’t legally binding, then why take them into account in the first place?

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I will literally never understand why the word of a corporation has any weight if it isn’t bound by law.

      You need to force corporations to act if it’s against their own interests.

    • jkrtn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It is because the billionaires write the laws through ALEC. The only part of the system which isn’t working as intended is that they had to make any promises in the first place.

    • nicetriangle@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s a book called The Media Monopoly that details how media companies have consolidated to just a handful of mega corps and the book had to be republished 5 times since the 80s because every few years the number keeps shrinking dramatically. The author later released a brand new book called The New Media Monopoly which is essentially the 7th edition of the original book and at this point we’re in a fucked up late stage version of the problem he originally detailed.

      From the Wiki on the author:

      In 2000 Bagdikian stated, “Every edition has been considered by some to be alarmist and every edition ends up being too conservative.” In this latest version, Bagdikian wrote that the number of corporations controlling most of the media decreased to five: Disney, News Corporation, Time Warner, Viacom, and Bertelsmann. He argued, “This gives each of the five corporations and their leaders more communications power than was exercised by any despot or dictatorship in history.”

      The Onion is a bit too accurate sometimes.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Bill Clinton, chief executive of U.S. Government, a division of MCI-WorldCom, praised Monday’s merger as “an excellent move.”’

      LMAO

  • jballs@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Damn, would be crazy if they succeed in undoing the merger. Would be nice to see some consequences for blatantly lying to the court.

    • zcd@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No you see it’s OK to lie to the court when you’re rich or a multinational company

  • nicetriangle@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    The actual fuck did they think was gonna happen? Literally everyone saw this coming except the FTC somehow I guess.

    • brisk@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The FTC argued this would happen, it’s the court that swallowed Microsoft’s tripe. This is the FTC’s “I told you, bro!”

    • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The FTC knew it was coming, and tried to stop the merger. But they got shot down in the courts, because a judge believed Microsoft was going to be benevolent and not immediately lay off all of the acquired company’s employees.

      This is the FTC’s way of publicly slapping the judge.

  • DominusOfMegadeus@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Microsoft has realized it can do absolutely anything and that the government will do absolutely nothing. And what is the point of all of this? A few already, enormously wealthy executives get a few more millions of dollars? Who fucking cares? The real important thing is the people doing the work to create a product that millions of others enjoy. That they have a job and can earn a livelihood. But none of that matters to the psychopaths who run these corporations. Why do we continue to allow this to happen? I don’t know why I even bother writing comments anymore. I’ve depressed myself.

    • MxM111@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      What’s the alternative? Communism? State ownership of the means of production? Those are worse.

        • MxM111@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Did not say crony. And yes, there are alternatives like feudalism, you think they worth mentioning? And I specifically mentioned state ownership too, so, you can count socialism (as economic system there too).

  • blazeknave@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Eli5 please… in lieu of US trust busting, couldn’t literally any government entity like the EU, where msft etc Al do business, have stopped this acquisition? How did this happen in the first place?

    • EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      As far as I understand the circumstances, because Microsoft and Activision-Blizzard are both US companies, they ultimately fall under US regulation except for any of their offices/holdings in other countries, where they have to abide by the local laws. The reason the FTC is upset now is that Microsoft had said that Activision-Blizzard was largely going to be its own independent company under the Microsoft brand, so these layoffs go against those promises - especially with the wording about removing “overlap” between the companies, which points to them firing people at Activision-Blizzard who had the same job as people already working at Microsoft. The only reason that they’d do that is if they’re not actually letting Activision-Blizzard run on their own and are going to be merging the company into Microsoft more than they had said they would.

      I do remember something about the UK signing off on the merger, so I assume that there are some countries that did their own “due diligence” and approved the acquisition, but a majority of these layoffs are in California by the sounds of it, so all any of them could really do at this point is hold Microsoft liable if they don’t follow local labor laws about severances and the like. I assume that they felt the same way as the FTC, in that the promise of Activision-Blizzard running on their own meant that there was little concern about monopolizing the industry.

  • secundnature@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    They talk about broken promises and misrepresentation of what they would do after the merger. Corporations aren’t people and don’t have morals to stop them from breaking promises or just flat out lying. The only way they will do anything is if it makes them money or they are forced (regulated)

    • gian @lemmy.grys.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Corporations aren’t people and don’t have morals to stop them from breaking promises or just flat out lying

      I think this is pure bullshit. In the end corporation are guided by people, who make decision and have a clear chain of command. When a corporation promise something, there are people behind that signed off the promise.

      And you can punish a corporation by simply punishing the people who sign off what the corporatoion does, at any level. I mean, it is good to be the CEO and get the big bucks, fine, but if the corporation you are CEO of does something wrong it is your responsability to fix it and take the punishment for it.

      • secundnature@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There aren’t laws saying the company had to tell the truth, so if they lie, what’s the punishment?

        Edit: also, wouldn’t the power to punish them have to come from some sort of law or regulation? 🤔

  • Vaderhoff@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t think I’ve seen a game studio acquisition happen without layoffs of some sort. Doesn’t make it right, but it does seem like a horrible routine.

    • dunestorm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah but 1,900 staff, come the fuck on that’s a mass exodus not a layoff. I’m in a company of 300+ people and it’s a HUGE number of people, I can hardly process over 6x as many layoffs…

      • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Stock markets love capex, hates opex.

        “Well done, you’ve spent 75 billion to buy market share!!”

        “Oh no, you would spend at least 230 million/year for these employees - that just won’t do”.

        Nevermind the fact that 1900 roles also buys market share (and you could run 1900 people for 300+ years), but opex is opex and execs are bonused on margins.

        • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          For the unaware:
          Capex=capital expenditures. These are the one-time purchases, which grow the business.
          Opex=operating expenditures. These are the recurring costs of doing business. Payroll, utility payments, rent for office buildings, etc…

          Basically, the stock market loves it when you buy things. Stock owners see it as growing the company, and therefore growing the value of the stock. But they hate operating expenditures, because those make the company seem less valuable; Buying Activision (capex) is great for stock prices, but paying their employees (opex) isn’t.

          This is why big corporate acquisitions are usually immediately followed by huge rounds of layoffs for the acquired company. The new company owns the things, but doesn’t want the opex to show up on the next quarterly expense report. So they’ll usually gut the acquired company. Because they’re usually buying other companies for things like copyrights, patents, trade secrets, etc… If they were interested in the employees at the acquired company, they’d be using recruiting tactics and headhunting, instead of simply buying the entire company.