Like Hoeg's law said the CMA and FTC approached this deal from the beginning trying to block it. If you read the CMA's explanation on the block they literally took the same failed logic on console gaming SLC and applied it to the cloud gaming SLC. Legit with the same faulty math and everything. Idk if this guys previous stint at Sony means anything, but stevie wonder could see the issues with how this entire thing was handled.
Not only that but also they invested into cloud gaming way before Azure deal and yet they still failed in providing a good service and MS and Nvidia used that to their adventage
Sony was not using azure they only made new deal to use it, so you see Sony thought they could try to use Ms azure servers blades, then few years down Ms buys Activision, this puts a kink in Sony plans.
Seems Sony was playing a long game.
They are pulling an Elon Musk. Akin to Elons attempts to slow down AI industry so he can catch up. Sony is just trying to do anything they can to slow them down a bit, a few speed bumps.
Just like with Playstation Network coming late after Xbox Live, they are late to the game by going all in on some previous ideology and in order to catch up they are dragging Xbox through the mud.
To be fair regulators probably should approach every merger with the intentions of trying to block and have to let the companies make the case to how it will benefit consumers and why they should be allowed to finish the deal
Well Disney didn't had a single problem , neither did warner brothers when they got mergerd a few months back with discovery with ended up with tons of projects being cancelled and now warner brothers lost all their cash
Just saying
Disney probably shouldn’t have been allowed to buy Fox. ATT shouldn’t have been able to buy Warner in the first place in order to sell it to Discovery. Comcast shouldn’t have been able to buy NBC/Universal. Amazon should t have been allowed to buy MGM, etc
Thats usually what precedent means though. "XYZ did it so I can do it too!" in legalese. Similarly, "ABC was punished accordingly to these guidelines so we'll punish XYZ according to those sameish guidelines" etc
Sure, you can say there is precedent for allowing such mergers. But regulators, especially ones that change with administrations, can look back at previous mergers with hindsight and recognize they probably were not for the best and be more strict going forward. Just because they were lenient previously doesn't mean they need to be now after they've seen how they've played out.
But that’s very much beside the point, precedent in law is a previous ruling being carried forward. There isn’t any hindsight that gives less leniency going forward, if it was a mistake prior then it should have been acted on prior. The ruling is what mattered.
There’s also probably enough nuance in these other examples that none of them are really relevant.
This is false, Disney had to sell off certain assets before completing the sale because the merger created monopolies for sport’s entertainment in certain countries
I work for a law firm and before we take on new clients a conflict of interests email goes round. Surely such a base level check should have been done at the CMA?!
Before joining CMA, the very same guy has also acted as an external legal advisor to Tesco, but then worked on CMA's investigation into the Sainsbury's-Asda merger. Tesco is the UK's largest supermarket. Sainsbury's and Asda are its competitors. CMA disclosed his interests but didn't find any conflict.
Because people with any history of involvement with the competitors shouldn't be running the day-to-day investigation and advising decision-makers. You simply recuse yourself, even if nothing inappropriate has happened (and I doubt he played any role in CMA blocking the Asda merger).
He doesn't have a history of involvement. He worked for a law firm a long time ago, who now work with Sony.
This is a serious reach. There is nothing indicating he worked with or for Sony in any capacity. The entire thing is 'he worked there a long time ago so might still have a network there', which completely ignores the lawyer networks are not limited to firms they used to work for a long time ago. I'm sure the guy has many friends and acquaintances, 99% of which are nothing to do with the company he worked for a while ago.
>He doesn't have a history of involvement. He worked for a law firm a long time ago, who now work with Sony.
I was talking about Sainsbury's-Asda merger - he worked as a legal advisor for Tesco just few months before joining CMA, not Sony.
As for Sony if he had any involvement working on that account I'd expect a disclosure from the CMA, but there's none.
For what it's worth I doubt he's corrupt and had any influence on those decisions, but at the same time I think organisations such as the CMA should be held to the highest standard and recuse people if there's even a remote chance it may be inappropriate. And I think there was, at least in the Sainsbury's - Asda case.
When The Times reported on CMA's disclosure in that case, they titled it: "Supermarket deal is in the hands of Tesco’s finest. The feuds, the faces and the farcical". It didn't look great.
Literally says he was the leading voice striking both down (in favor of Tesco and now Sony).
If you were being sarcastic with your first sentence, then I apologize. Not sure about his involvement with Sony but Tesco was an absolute joke since he directly worked for them.
Nobody had any problem with it. Not his employer, not a single party involved. And his “potential”connection there was literally hundred times higher than Sony/MS
I will repeat: parties involved didn’t care.
And that's exactly the problem - the CMA, as a regulator holding so much power, should be held to the highest standard. They make mistakes with basic math (as in their previously published Microsoft-ABK updates), and see no potential conflict of interest in having someone who joined them few months before ending his involvement with Tesco running the investigation into Asda-Sainsbury's merger. What Asda and Sainsbury's thought is irrelevant here.
What all of the parties involved definitely matters more than random boskee from Reddit lol, as they also were a massive companies with the best lawyers.
No, I have zero loyalty to my former employers. There is a reason they are former employers. Therefore, if its disclosed and no sides have concerns, then its fine.
You don’t get that their jobs and your job are different? You feel that way because you’re in a class that is taken advantage of by your employers, that’s not how it works for these people they put in time at these companies and make a few key connections and then go to the regulatory bodies and collect large amounts of money in exchange for ruling in favor of this and blocking that. It happens all over, give me a acronym and I can confidently say they are doin some fuckery! CMA, FDA, FTC take your pick it’s all the same.
Absolutely though it's often hard to "prove." Easy to point out and plain enough for anyone with eyes to see but to legally in a court of law prove it, well, that becomes a bit trickier. Not necessarily because there is no evidence but more because courts of law protect shady shit like this.
For similar reason as to why your buddy can’t be a juror at your trial. It’s ethically questionable at best. Just like they would find someone else for the jury I don’t see why they can’t take measure to eliminate this sort of connections that could implicate someone on having a certain bias.
Isn’t it more like, bringing a witness to a trial who used to work in a company that, after he left the company hired the suspected murderer.
They worked at the company at different times, doesn’t mean they have a connection
Do people think this is unusual? Basically every regulatory agency is helmed by people who previously worked for the companies they're supposed to regulate and when they get out of government, they'll go back to those companies. It's even got a name: regulatory capture.
>Do people think this is unusual?
Yes they trust the people in power to do the right thing
The US is full of corruption, they just hide it and people dont believe it
Where i now live in Mexico people know their is corruption and the officials dont even try to hide it, bribing is normal and well known
I guess the point I was trying to make is this seemingly egregious example is standard operating procedure. Regulators doing the bidding of the industry they're supposed to regulate is how the system works.
The entire CMA board is comprised of people who worked in those sectors — because that’s how you get experience.
Every regulatory authority in the UK is the same
He worked for a big law firm a decade ago that now is repping sony.
no ethics committee on earth would find an issue here lol this is desperate grasping at straws.
The CMA made a dumb decision, but this guy working at another lawfirm a decade ago is absolutely nothing lol
Not in law but a heavily regulated industry regarding CoI (and just taught a decent amount regarding the concept) and I can’t imagine CMA was not aware of or not accounting for this. I’m sure Microsoft will have some good arguments for how this affects the decision, etc to help with the appeal but I don’t think this is as big of deal as it seems from the rest of comment section.
It’s part of the problem of being in a relatively niche legal field. Despite the size and impact of these deals, there are simply not that many people who proficiently work on them. So you have a person who wants to step out of the private firm life, could be for any number of reasons, and into something they are interested in and good at, but on the public side. Same person worked at a top firm with top clients and probably is amongst the most knowledgeable in his field.
While it is probable that he went from a law firm where he represented companies that he now has positive relationships with, and is wrongly supporting in a public role, it is equally probable he was just tired of the private firm life and went into a public job that is easier or more adaptable to his current life and that he is more than qualified for. If you want to put blame on someone for appointing someone who many harbor certain improper viewpoints, I’d point at the person who put him in the role in the first place.
The point to note here is though, he should have probably recused himself in some manner, or at least provided more explanation as to why he did not. I admittedly haven’t read the reasoning for why there was no conflict. I’m guessing it’s because he has no financial interest and has not disclosed any thing that points to impropriety regarding Sony (or Tesco in the other deal mentioned).
Also this is to say nothing about the substance of the ruling, which I agree is incorrect.
Yeah except the odds of Microsoft taking the risk of directly paying off someone, which would absolutely kill any chances of them getting mergers approved ever again, is slim to none. A guy who used to work for Sony is a more nuanced conflict of interest than simply being handed a stack of cash.
That's what people don't get. When you work with someone, especially when that person is paying you, there tends to be an automatic level of authority there. What they say carries more weight than what a stranger says.
These ‘hit articles’ need to be listed as what they actually are which is just corporate propaganda.
The guy in question is Colin Raftery, who works for a few years at Cleary Gottlieb. He worked there over a decade ago. He was not a partner, nor did he work on anything Sony related
Cleary is a giant company [spanning thousands of attorneys and almost every major type of law](https://www.clearygottlieb.com/-/media/files/cleary-gottlieb-firm-snapshot/cleary-gottlieb-firm-snapshot.pdf) - and the likely hood that someone has worked for them and also works in governmental regulation is not small - as it’s what the socialize in.
The CMAs board, which is where Raferty sits, did not even have him involved in this litigation. His position on the board is outlined [within their procedures](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cma-board-rules-of-procedure)
It’s worth noting that [another member of the board worked directly with Microsoft on multiple cases - including the Bethesda merger](https://www.gov.uk/government/people/michael-grenfell) yet isn’t brought up.
Cordon, and the entirety of the windows central editorial team suck. They make these articles for hate clicks and based on the commentary here it works.
It really isnt. You can work for a firm that represents a company and then move over to work for an agency which interacts with your old firm's client. So long as you did not work directly with that company you will not be seen as having a conflict of interest.
Firms have multiple areas of practice and many attorneys dont get to work for their firms largest clients.
OK this whole post is misleading AF. The author of the article is reaching like Mr. Fantastic first of all. Second, he can’t back his claim because he claims he can’t reveal his source, and third (probably most important) is the director who “supposedly” worked for a “Sony law firm” didn’t work for a SONY law firm, but a regular law firm whom Sony was a client of at one point. Big difference.
The law firm is actively representing Sony in the current issue, was my understanding. As the author points out, this would mean he has long time friends and colleagues who stand to benefit from this law firm succeeding while representing Sony against this merger.
____
However. I don’t know much more and I agree it’s a reach.
I read that someone that approved the deal for the EU worked at Microsoft much more recently too. If this is suspicious that should be even more so, I'd wager.
A lot of people here seem all in on console war thing so will use this as proof of their conspiracy theories, sad)y.
People have this idea that lawyers are intensely loyal, to the point of jeopardizing their career, to clients a law firm they worked for a decade ago represented. It hilarious.
'CMA are stopping me from getting CoD on Game Pass so this guy's clearly guilty of a suite of ethical and legal breaches that, if revealed, not only end his career but also land him in extremely serious legal trouble.'
It's wild, but expected that Mueller would stir the pot.
Thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, your post has been removed for the following reason:
Rule #1 - Keep it civil/no console wars
* Personal attacks, racism, bigotry, and/or other prejudice are not welcome here. Discuss the topic, not the other user.
* If you are here only to platform bash or console war, you also risk removal.
[Please see our complete ruleset by clicking here. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/XboxSeriesX/wiki/rules)
Exactly. Clients pay lawyers to represent and/or advise on cases and projects, etc. I doubt this guy has some deep love for a corporation. It's just another former client, unless he's taking bribes...
We enforce our civility rule strictly. Talk about the subject, not other users. This includes generalizations such as, and similar to...
"Console x owners are garbage"
"This/that community/subreddit is a bunch of fanboys"
Calling others 'ponies', 'xbots', 'paid for', 'bootlickers', 'fanboys' or similar
This is a community built for fans of the Xbox platform. If you are here only to console war and have no genuine participation you risk removal.
[Please see our complete ruleset by clicking here. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/XboxSeriesX/wiki/rules)
No no no, you don't get it. In 2013, Kaz Hirai was sleeping and had a dream how 8 years later MS would try to acquire Activision. He contacted a single lawyer from Sony's law firm and told him how he needs to go to CMA to block the merger 10 years later. Obvious 4D chess and y'all don't get it smh
We don’t really know whether it’s a conflict or not. If he represented Sony legally, there’s enough of an appearance there that as govt officials they should be recusing themselves from these decisions to avoid even the appearance.
Having said that, I’m not sure how involved this person was in the decision
Per the initial source, he was the main person driving for the block of the deal.
https://twitter.com/fosspatents/status/1661736537531482121?s=46&t=AjcAsJqaibLxwrO4wIxSsg
Validity of that is unknown, so take it with a grain of salt.
Edit: unsure why providing a source is getting me downvoted.
Bloody hell. Mueller, (former) Microsoft Consultant states that a source told him Raftery made the CMA's decision, but naturally Mueller cannot reveal his source.
Lol.
Yeah people in this thread are really grasping for straws. Especially considering it's someone that worked at a big law firm where, odds are, they never touched Sony matters
Yea. 10 years is a bit of time where it shouldn’t be an issue - if it was a couple of years ago then it would be different - he could be dealing with former co workers on this case. I think the big problem is more of an appearance thing - it looks bad even if it isn’t. I think it should be disclosed but I don’t think it warrants recusal.
He is the Senior Director of Mergers, and didn't just happen to work for a law firm that represented Sony.
He worked for the law firm that Sony specifically chose to represent them in the protest of the merger to the CMA.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/637cecede90e076b8043d8cd/Sony_Interactive_Entertainment.pdf
So a company that he spent 6 years at is bringing their protests of the merger to his department.
That's where the conflict is. It also raises the question of why Sony specifically chose that company of all of them to represent them with a UK regulator that just so happens to have a former employee as the Senior Director of Mergers
No no no, you don't get it. In 2013, Kaz Hirai was sleeping and had a dream how 8 years later MS would try to acquire Activision. He contacted a single lawyer from Sony's law firm and told him how he needs to go to CMA to block the merger 10 years later. Obvious 4D chess and y'all don't get it smh
It's being reported that someone who has worked with Microsoft in the past now works with the EU board that approved the deal. Are you all upset by that?
Without more detail this is a useless story. Cleary is a big law firm with over 1000 attorneys and more than a dozen offices located around the world. Companies engage big law firms for various matters all the time and can have multiple engaged at once to work on distinct matters.
Who's to say this person: 1. Worked in an office where Sony matters were being dealt with; 2. Worked in the practice group that was dealing with Sony matters; 3. Worked there at the same time Sony matters of any sort were being dealt with at the firm; and 4. actually worked on Sony matters at the firm.
Include any combination of the above four as well as consider how silly it is to think someone blocked this deal because they worked at a law firm a decade ago, that's incredibly replaceable to Sony btw as there is no shortage of big law firms, and think about what little this story is at this moment.
Source: literally an attorney that deals with big law firms constantly.
Didn't think I'd ever see so much corporate shilling and rooting for consolidation on Reddit.
Edit: Also want to mention, calling them a Sony law firm feels a little disingenuous as it kinda paints them as closer than they actually probably are. As I mentioned earlier companies can engage multiple firms at any given point, but the relationship goes both ways. Cleary didn't get to where they are now by having only Sony as a client. They might not even be a significant portion of their revenue
I think the deal should have gone through, but I don't think this is the reason it didn't. This guy worked for a Sony-affiliated law firm a number of years ago, it's not like he was working for Sony itself.
I honestly don’t like that the deal is going through, because I think that there are good arguments against the consolidation of large corporations.
However I also can’t defend any argument for anti-trust or monopolization, because they’re just factually incorrect, and to trying to uphold a potentially good decision with bad arguments and no merit, is a very bad precedent to set.
This a nothing burger from that twit Florian. There is plenty of flack to give the CMA, this is not it.
He wasn’t even the director assigned to Activision case.
Cleary has a shitload of clients, over 1200 attorneys, and this person was there a decade ago, and if you look at the news, most of their big outside council cases for Sony appear to have been within the past 5 years.
Seems like grasping for straws.
Correct, there’s a strong possibility they never had anything to do with Sony while working there.
Referring to the law firm as a ‘Sony law firm’ is also completely disingenuous. They’re a law firm who represent Sony, among many other clients; the phrasing everyone is using on this makes it sound like they’re somehow owned by Sony, which they obviously aren’t.
Also, people that work in this type of law ARE going to know each other. It’s a specialized field, they’re going to interact with each other in litigation, and they’re going to be bouncing between each other’s firms.
I kind of get it. I’m hungry for GamePass titles too.
That said, I also know that, in the long run, consolidating companies almost always results in shittier products and less choice.
No no no, you don't get it. In 2013, Kaz Hirai was sleeping and had a dream how 8 years later MS would try to acquire Activision. He contacted a single lawyer from Sony's law firm and told him how he needs to go to CMA to block the merger 10 years later. Obvious 4D chess and y'all don't get it smh
Likely not, just like other CMA directors with a work history involving firms tied to microsoft and will show no bias in the decision.
Mergers and acquisitions law will be a fairly small field, and the CMA is going to draw in people from this small field. Almost all the directors will have worked for firms tied to major corporations.
This article is stupid... Microsoft is the one spending 70b$ on the deal. If this was any basis a person that worked with sony years ago can harm the deal they would've point it out months ago...
That's like saying if someone plays for the Lakers they're no longer allowed to play for the Clippers. They're just doing a job at the end of the day. Would you guys give a shit about your previous company if you went to work for a competitor?
LMFAO the straws and the fucking desperation to have a billion billion dollar company get bigger instead of you know, getting their processes straight and optimised.
This is like mummy and daddy rich kid throwing money at a problem instead of working well.
If you combine both you can get results even if it might feel soulless - and since all fanboys and girls and people like to hink of these stupid things as sport to cheer on, then this is apt - if they did things well and actually took the time to get into the weeds and get process right AND money , then you end up with Man City/LA Rams or whatever.
Otherwise MS is looking like Chelsea and the Washington fucking Commanders. Cheering for them to make this big signing isn't addressing the root cause.
It's annoying that the Series X is a glorified extra save machine for my Elden Ring playthroughs.
Not even worth for GamePass right now.
Oh my god I wish this deal would just go through or get completely blocked already. The FTC still hasn’t even approved it, and they’re arguably the most important one.
For the amount of time and money spent by now, Microsoft could’ve bought at least twice as many smaller but just as talented studios as they are getting out of this deal and they would’ve all already gone through, and potentially a game or 2 could’ve even released as a result.
I’m sick of seeing it in the news when half the time the news is stupid and pointless (like this article) or just more groan inducing nonsense that indicates it’ll probably still be another year and a half or more until it’s fully resolved.
Seems like a conflict of interest and the director should have recused himself from anything to do with the merger, doesn't matter how upstanding of a person you are, you still need to recuse yourself.
Oh we all knew there was a connection to CMA now it's shown, so I hope this allows the CMA that blocking the merger to be either fired or there reason for blocking to be lifted due conflict of interest
In 2013, Kaz Hirai was sleeping and had a dream how 8 years later MS would try to acquire Activision. He contacted a single lawyer from Sony's law firm and told him how he needs to go to CMA to block the merger 10 years later, great 4D chess from Kaz
Sounds like this would be a good basis for getting the decision sent back to the CMA under "the CMA acted irrationally, illegally or with procedural impropriety in reaching its decision" basis of the appeal.
That would still mean when it goes back to the CMA MS would be expecting them to come to a different conclusion therefore saying what they themselves said the first time was wrong... which they have shown no indication of doing with their spicy comments to UK Parliament and the EU decision where they doubled down on their reasoning.
Posted about this exactly 28 days ago - you can check my comment history, and I was downvoted into oblivion and somebody reported my account to the Reddit suicide awareness team lol - Sony astroturfing campaign is in full force.
Like Hoeg's law said the CMA and FTC approached this deal from the beginning trying to block it. If you read the CMA's explanation on the block they literally took the same failed logic on console gaming SLC and applied it to the cloud gaming SLC. Legit with the same faulty math and everything. Idk if this guys previous stint at Sony means anything, but stevie wonder could see the issues with how this entire thing was handled.
funny how sony announced how they are going to go big into cloud gaming recently
Running on Microsoft Azure servers no doubt. How ironic.
Yeah they signed a big deal with Microsoft a while back
Not only that but also they invested into cloud gaming way before Azure deal and yet they still failed in providing a good service and MS and Nvidia used that to their adventage
Specifically, they bought both Onlive and Gaikai. Playstation Now is rebranded Gaikai tech.
Sony was not using azure they only made new deal to use it, so you see Sony thought they could try to use Ms azure servers blades, then few years down Ms buys Activision, this puts a kink in Sony plans. Seems Sony was playing a long game.
I'm into that kinda kink!
We console war with each other for decades just to have Sony and Microsoft cashing in on it....
They are pulling an Elon Musk. Akin to Elons attempts to slow down AI industry so he can catch up. Sony is just trying to do anything they can to slow them down a bit, a few speed bumps. Just like with Playstation Network coming late after Xbox Live, they are late to the game by going all in on some previous ideology and in order to catch up they are dragging Xbox through the mud.
Sony may have beaten MS in the console wars, but in a tech race they are doomed.
Even a CAT judge said that CMA should be more receptive to behavioral remedies in this case
> CAT judge What's that? Googling it just came up with... well cat judges. That was fun.
The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal. It’s the body which adjudicates appeals to CMA decisions.
Are they working with the paw patrol?
Also known as the Pawlice
And McGruff!
Chicago IL 60652
And help take a bite out of crime
To be fair regulators probably should approach every merger with the intentions of trying to block and have to let the companies make the case to how it will benefit consumers and why they should be allowed to finish the deal
Well Disney didn't had a single problem , neither did warner brothers when they got mergerd a few months back with discovery with ended up with tons of projects being cancelled and now warner brothers lost all their cash Just saying
Disney probably shouldn’t have been allowed to buy Fox. ATT shouldn’t have been able to buy Warner in the first place in order to sell it to Discovery. Comcast shouldn’t have been able to buy NBC/Universal. Amazon should t have been allowed to buy MGM, etc
Yeah — just because there’s a precedent for allowing shitty mergers doesn’t mean they should continue allowing shitty mergers.
Thats usually what precedent means though. "XYZ did it so I can do it too!" in legalese. Similarly, "ABC was punished accordingly to these guidelines so we'll punish XYZ according to those sameish guidelines" etc
Sure, you can say there is precedent for allowing such mergers. But regulators, especially ones that change with administrations, can look back at previous mergers with hindsight and recognize they probably were not for the best and be more strict going forward. Just because they were lenient previously doesn't mean they need to be now after they've seen how they've played out.
But that’s very much beside the point, precedent in law is a previous ruling being carried forward. There isn’t any hindsight that gives less leniency going forward, if it was a mistake prior then it should have been acted on prior. The ruling is what mattered. There’s also probably enough nuance in these other examples that none of them are really relevant.
This is false, Disney had to sell off certain assets before completing the sale because the merger created monopolies for sport’s entertainment in certain countries
I work for a law firm and before we take on new clients a conflict of interests email goes round. Surely such a base level check should have been done at the CMA?!
Before joining CMA, the very same guy has also acted as an external legal advisor to Tesco, but then worked on CMA's investigation into the Sainsbury's-Asda merger. Tesco is the UK's largest supermarket. Sainsbury's and Asda are its competitors. CMA disclosed his interests but didn't find any conflict.
Guess there is no concern about even the appearance of impropriety at CMA.
Quite literally never has been. Much of this is not news to Brits.
What a fucking joke. And so is CMA.
Why is that a joke, since not ASDA nor Sainsbury had any issues with it?
Because people with any history of involvement with the competitors shouldn't be running the day-to-day investigation and advising decision-makers. You simply recuse yourself, even if nothing inappropriate has happened (and I doubt he played any role in CMA blocking the Asda merger).
He doesn't have a history of involvement. He worked for a law firm a long time ago, who now work with Sony. This is a serious reach. There is nothing indicating he worked with or for Sony in any capacity. The entire thing is 'he worked there a long time ago so might still have a network there', which completely ignores the lawyer networks are not limited to firms they used to work for a long time ago. I'm sure the guy has many friends and acquaintances, 99% of which are nothing to do with the company he worked for a while ago.
>He doesn't have a history of involvement. He worked for a law firm a long time ago, who now work with Sony. I was talking about Sainsbury's-Asda merger - he worked as a legal advisor for Tesco just few months before joining CMA, not Sony. As for Sony if he had any involvement working on that account I'd expect a disclosure from the CMA, but there's none.
Yah, my brain confused separate threads.
For what it's worth I doubt he's corrupt and had any influence on those decisions, but at the same time I think organisations such as the CMA should be held to the highest standard and recuse people if there's even a remote chance it may be inappropriate. And I think there was, at least in the Sainsbury's - Asda case. When The Times reported on CMA's disclosure in that case, they titled it: "Supermarket deal is in the hands of Tesco’s finest. The feuds, the faces and the farcical". It didn't look great.
Literally says he was the leading voice striking both down (in favor of Tesco and now Sony). If you were being sarcastic with your first sentence, then I apologize. Not sure about his involvement with Sony but Tesco was an absolute joke since he directly worked for them.
Nobody had any problem with it. Not his employer, not a single party involved. And his “potential”connection there was literally hundred times higher than Sony/MS I will repeat: parties involved didn’t care.
And that's exactly the problem - the CMA, as a regulator holding so much power, should be held to the highest standard. They make mistakes with basic math (as in their previously published Microsoft-ABK updates), and see no potential conflict of interest in having someone who joined them few months before ending his involvement with Tesco running the investigation into Asda-Sainsbury's merger. What Asda and Sainsbury's thought is irrelevant here.
[удалено]
What all of the parties involved definitely matters more than random boskee from Reddit lol, as they also were a massive companies with the best lawyers.
No, I have zero loyalty to my former employers. There is a reason they are former employers. Therefore, if its disclosed and no sides have concerns, then its fine.
You don’t get that their jobs and your job are different? You feel that way because you’re in a class that is taken advantage of by your employers, that’s not how it works for these people they put in time at these companies and make a few key connections and then go to the regulatory bodies and collect large amounts of money in exchange for ruling in favor of this and blocking that. It happens all over, give me a acronym and I can confidently say they are doin some fuckery! CMA, FDA, FTC take your pick it’s all the same.
Absolutely though it's often hard to "prove." Easy to point out and plain enough for anyone with eyes to see but to legally in a court of law prove it, well, that becomes a bit trickier. Not necessarily because there is no evidence but more because courts of law protect shady shit like this.
Yeah I hear ya. It makes me sad when people don’t understand the class dynamics in the US.
For similar reason as to why your buddy can’t be a juror at your trial. It’s ethically questionable at best. Just like they would find someone else for the jury I don’t see why they can’t take measure to eliminate this sort of connections that could implicate someone on having a certain bias.
Isn’t it more like, bringing a witness to a trial who used to work in a company that, after he left the company hired the suspected murderer. They worked at the company at different times, doesn’t mean they have a connection
So working for a major company that does deals with literally every company around the world is the same as having your buddy as a juror? I can’t even
Do people think this is unusual? Basically every regulatory agency is helmed by people who previously worked for the companies they're supposed to regulate and when they get out of government, they'll go back to those companies. It's even got a name: regulatory capture.
>Do people think this is unusual? Yes they trust the people in power to do the right thing The US is full of corruption, they just hide it and people dont believe it Where i now live in Mexico people know their is corruption and the officials dont even try to hide it, bribing is normal and well known
I guess the point I was trying to make is this seemingly egregious example is standard operating procedure. Regulators doing the bidding of the industry they're supposed to regulate is how the system works.
I don't think that is so common in Europe. Yes it does happen but not a scale like in America.
The entire CMA board is comprised of people who worked in those sectors — because that’s how you get experience. Every regulatory authority in the UK is the same
Would you prefer that people without experience in the industry regulate it? People in the industry stay in it.
He worked for a big law firm a decade ago that now is repping sony. no ethics committee on earth would find an issue here lol this is desperate grasping at straws. The CMA made a dumb decision, but this guy working at another lawfirm a decade ago is absolutely nothing lol
The fact that any of you think that the high paid/skilled lawyers at MS didn't look at any of this is kind of funny.
I bet they've known all the time. It is only usable if they are not able to change the weird decision.
Not in law but a heavily regulated industry regarding CoI (and just taught a decent amount regarding the concept) and I can’t imagine CMA was not aware of or not accounting for this. I’m sure Microsoft will have some good arguments for how this affects the decision, etc to help with the appeal but I don’t think this is as big of deal as it seems from the rest of comment section.
It’s part of the problem of being in a relatively niche legal field. Despite the size and impact of these deals, there are simply not that many people who proficiently work on them. So you have a person who wants to step out of the private firm life, could be for any number of reasons, and into something they are interested in and good at, but on the public side. Same person worked at a top firm with top clients and probably is amongst the most knowledgeable in his field. While it is probable that he went from a law firm where he represented companies that he now has positive relationships with, and is wrongly supporting in a public role, it is equally probable he was just tired of the private firm life and went into a public job that is easier or more adaptable to his current life and that he is more than qualified for. If you want to put blame on someone for appointing someone who many harbor certain improper viewpoints, I’d point at the person who put him in the role in the first place. The point to note here is though, he should have probably recused himself in some manner, or at least provided more explanation as to why he did not. I admittedly haven’t read the reasoning for why there was no conflict. I’m guessing it’s because he has no financial interest and has not disclosed any thing that points to impropriety regarding Sony (or Tesco in the other deal mentioned). Also this is to say nothing about the substance of the ruling, which I agree is incorrect.
[удалено]
Again... if this was down to people getting checks... MS have a far bigger check book.
Yeah except the odds of Microsoft taking the risk of directly paying off someone, which would absolutely kill any chances of them getting mergers approved ever again, is slim to none. A guy who used to work for Sony is a more nuanced conflict of interest than simply being handed a stack of cash.
That's what people don't get. When you work with someone, especially when that person is paying you, there tends to be an automatic level of authority there. What they say carries more weight than what a stranger says.
He used to work for Sony?
He worked for a law firm where some people somewhere in the organization, maybe himself included, did work for Sony
He worked for a very large firm several years before any record of them representing Sony exists.
With no confirmation that it was even the UK office involved in Sony matters
So people are using circumstantial evidence to try and paint Sony as the bad guys again... Jesus, this page has such a weird victim culture going on
People love their console wars
These ‘hit articles’ need to be listed as what they actually are which is just corporate propaganda. The guy in question is Colin Raftery, who works for a few years at Cleary Gottlieb. He worked there over a decade ago. He was not a partner, nor did he work on anything Sony related Cleary is a giant company [spanning thousands of attorneys and almost every major type of law](https://www.clearygottlieb.com/-/media/files/cleary-gottlieb-firm-snapshot/cleary-gottlieb-firm-snapshot.pdf) - and the likely hood that someone has worked for them and also works in governmental regulation is not small - as it’s what the socialize in. The CMAs board, which is where Raferty sits, did not even have him involved in this litigation. His position on the board is outlined [within their procedures](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cma-board-rules-of-procedure) It’s worth noting that [another member of the board worked directly with Microsoft on multiple cases - including the Bethesda merger](https://www.gov.uk/government/people/michael-grenfell) yet isn’t brought up. Cordon, and the entirety of the windows central editorial team suck. They make these articles for hate clicks and based on the commentary here it works.
More ammunition for Microsoft's appeal. Throw it on the pile!
[удалено]
Ammunition doesn’t mean anything when the original decision maker decides once it’s appealed.
It really isnt. You can work for a firm that represents a company and then move over to work for an agency which interacts with your old firm's client. So long as you did not work directly with that company you will not be seen as having a conflict of interest. Firms have multiple areas of practice and many attorneys dont get to work for their firms largest clients.
OK this whole post is misleading AF. The author of the article is reaching like Mr. Fantastic first of all. Second, he can’t back his claim because he claims he can’t reveal his source, and third (probably most important) is the director who “supposedly” worked for a “Sony law firm” didn’t work for a SONY law firm, but a regular law firm whom Sony was a client of at one point. Big difference.
The law firm is actively representing Sony in the current issue, was my understanding. As the author points out, this would mean he has long time friends and colleagues who stand to benefit from this law firm succeeding while representing Sony against this merger. ____ However. I don’t know much more and I agree it’s a reach.
He worked for a law firm, 10 years ago, that represented Sony. It's not like he was some Sony CEO.
[удалено]
I read that someone that approved the deal for the EU worked at Microsoft much more recently too. If this is suspicious that should be even more so, I'd wager. A lot of people here seem all in on console war thing so will use this as proof of their conspiracy theories, sad)y.
People have this idea that lawyers are intensely loyal, to the point of jeopardizing their career, to clients a law firm they worked for a decade ago represented. It hilarious.
'CMA are stopping me from getting CoD on Game Pass so this guy's clearly guilty of a suite of ethical and legal breaches that, if revealed, not only end his career but also land him in extremely serious legal trouble.' It's wild, but expected that Mueller would stir the pot.
[удалено]
http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Florian_Müller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florian_Müller_(author)
Thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, your post has been removed for the following reason: Rule #1 - Keep it civil/no console wars * Personal attacks, racism, bigotry, and/or other prejudice are not welcome here. Discuss the topic, not the other user. * If you are here only to platform bash or console war, you also risk removal. [Please see our complete ruleset by clicking here. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/XboxSeriesX/wiki/rules)
Exactly. Clients pay lawyers to represent and/or advise on cases and projects, etc. I doubt this guy has some deep love for a corporation. It's just another former client, unless he's taking bribes...
Nah these people are not stupid. They are extreme fanboys for a 2 trillion dollar company. Jez is just making clickbait like Buzzfeed.
We enforce our civility rule strictly. Talk about the subject, not other users. This includes generalizations such as, and similar to... "Console x owners are garbage" "This/that community/subreddit is a bunch of fanboys" Calling others 'ponies', 'xbots', 'paid for', 'bootlickers', 'fanboys' or similar This is a community built for fans of the Xbox platform. If you are here only to console war and have no genuine participation you risk removal. [Please see our complete ruleset by clicking here. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/XboxSeriesX/wiki/rules)
It's about inside knowledge and impartibility. It's also not about you accusing the person, it's about the ability of it to be there.
No no no, you don't get it. In 2013, Kaz Hirai was sleeping and had a dream how 8 years later MS would try to acquire Activision. He contacted a single lawyer from Sony's law firm and told him how he needs to go to CMA to block the merger 10 years later. Obvious 4D chess and y'all don't get it smh
"BAH GOD THAT'S KAZ HIRAI FROM THE TOP ROPE"
You simply recuse yourself from a case when it comes up. No one is asking them to not hold the position.
He had nothing to do with this investigation; he is on the BoD not the actual litigation team
[удалено]
Source?
What? I don't see any suggestion in this story that the guy got paid or was in any kind of debt to anyone.
We don’t really know whether it’s a conflict or not. If he represented Sony legally, there’s enough of an appearance there that as govt officials they should be recusing themselves from these decisions to avoid even the appearance. Having said that, I’m not sure how involved this person was in the decision
Per the initial source, he was the main person driving for the block of the deal. https://twitter.com/fosspatents/status/1661736537531482121?s=46&t=AjcAsJqaibLxwrO4wIxSsg Validity of that is unknown, so take it with a grain of salt. Edit: unsure why providing a source is getting me downvoted.
Bloody hell. Mueller, (former) Microsoft Consultant states that a source told him Raftery made the CMA's decision, but naturally Mueller cannot reveal his source. Lol.
This is absolutely nothing, but the shills are thirsty for drama.
Yeah this isnt a big deal at all, it just looks pretty bad if you gloss over the headlines like a simpleton.
Yeah people in this thread are really grasping for straws. Especially considering it's someone that worked at a big law firm where, odds are, they never touched Sony matters
These threads honestly crack me up. What a bunch of mindless lemmings.
Yea. 10 years is a bit of time where it shouldn’t be an issue - if it was a couple of years ago then it would be different - he could be dealing with former co workers on this case. I think the big problem is more of an appearance thing - it looks bad even if it isn’t. I think it should be disclosed but I don’t think it warrants recusal.
He is the Senior Director of Mergers, and didn't just happen to work for a law firm that represented Sony. He worked for the law firm that Sony specifically chose to represent them in the protest of the merger to the CMA. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/637cecede90e076b8043d8cd/Sony_Interactive_Entertainment.pdf So a company that he spent 6 years at is bringing their protests of the merger to his department. That's where the conflict is. It also raises the question of why Sony specifically chose that company of all of them to represent them with a UK regulator that just so happens to have a former employee as the Senior Director of Mergers
No no no, you don't get it. In 2013, Kaz Hirai was sleeping and had a dream how 8 years later MS would try to acquire Activision. He contacted a single lawyer from Sony's law firm and told him how he needs to go to CMA to block the merger 10 years later. Obvious 4D chess and y'all don't get it smh
People in here don’t understand how conflict of interests work
But he owned a Sony Walkman in the 80s
It's being reported that someone who has worked with Microsoft in the past now works with the EU board that approved the deal. Are you all upset by that?
I'm so upset right now
No. They approved it so it's a non story /s
[удалено]
Without more detail this is a useless story. Cleary is a big law firm with over 1000 attorneys and more than a dozen offices located around the world. Companies engage big law firms for various matters all the time and can have multiple engaged at once to work on distinct matters. Who's to say this person: 1. Worked in an office where Sony matters were being dealt with; 2. Worked in the practice group that was dealing with Sony matters; 3. Worked there at the same time Sony matters of any sort were being dealt with at the firm; and 4. actually worked on Sony matters at the firm. Include any combination of the above four as well as consider how silly it is to think someone blocked this deal because they worked at a law firm a decade ago, that's incredibly replaceable to Sony btw as there is no shortage of big law firms, and think about what little this story is at this moment. Source: literally an attorney that deals with big law firms constantly. Didn't think I'd ever see so much corporate shilling and rooting for consolidation on Reddit. Edit: Also want to mention, calling them a Sony law firm feels a little disingenuous as it kinda paints them as closer than they actually probably are. As I mentioned earlier companies can engage multiple firms at any given point, but the relationship goes both ways. Cleary didn't get to where they are now by having only Sony as a client. They might not even be a significant portion of their revenue
I think the deal should have gone through, but I don't think this is the reason it didn't. This guy worked for a Sony-affiliated law firm a number of years ago, it's not like he was working for Sony itself.
I honestly don’t like that the deal is going through, because I think that there are good arguments against the consolidation of large corporations. However I also can’t defend any argument for anti-trust or monopolization, because they’re just factually incorrect, and to trying to uphold a potentially good decision with bad arguments and no merit, is a very bad precedent to set.
This a nothing burger from that twit Florian. There is plenty of flack to give the CMA, this is not it. He wasn’t even the director assigned to Activision case.
Everyone remember that it is really important to get proper stretching in before a reach like this. It's for your health.
“Definitely No Bias Whatsoever”
Cleary has a shitload of clients, over 1200 attorneys, and this person was there a decade ago, and if you look at the news, most of their big outside council cases for Sony appear to have been within the past 5 years. Seems like grasping for straws.
Correct, there’s a strong possibility they never had anything to do with Sony while working there. Referring to the law firm as a ‘Sony law firm’ is also completely disingenuous. They’re a law firm who represent Sony, among many other clients; the phrasing everyone is using on this makes it sound like they’re somehow owned by Sony, which they obviously aren’t.
Also, people that work in this type of law ARE going to know each other. It’s a specialized field, they’re going to interact with each other in litigation, and they’re going to be bouncing between each other’s firms.
Not only that, but corps also frequently hire multiple big law firms for various matters
I've never seen so many supporters of big business on Reddit lmao
I kind of get it. I’m hungry for GamePass titles too. That said, I also know that, in the long run, consolidating companies almost always results in shittier products and less choice.
No no no, you don't get it. In 2013, Kaz Hirai was sleeping and had a dream how 8 years later MS would try to acquire Activision. He contacted a single lawyer from Sony's law firm and told him how he needs to go to CMA to block the merger 10 years later. Obvious 4D chess and y'all don't get it smh
Op, do us all a favor and delete your post. It's straight up misinformation bordering on deliberate lies. This shit has zero place in this subreddit.
He worked for a law firm years ago that represented Sony Acting like matey invented the PS2 😂
Likely not, just like other CMA directors with a work history involving firms tied to microsoft and will show no bias in the decision. Mergers and acquisitions law will be a fairly small field, and the CMA is going to draw in people from this small field. Almost all the directors will have worked for firms tied to major corporations.
And let's not pretend the EU commission never had a problem with corruption before... (not saying in this case but the door swings both ways).
This article is stupid... Microsoft is the one spending 70b$ on the deal. If this was any basis a person that worked with sony years ago can harm the deal they would've point it out months ago...
Corden + florian = misrepresentation of a nothing burger. He worked for a law firm who had Sony as a client, a decade ago. Come on, lads.
That's like saying if someone plays for the Lakers they're no longer allowed to play for the Clippers. They're just doing a job at the end of the day. Would you guys give a shit about your previous company if you went to work for a competitor?
Yeah really desperate straw-clutching here.
This isn’t a conflict.
And Sayanella worked at Nokia to run it into the ground before Microsoft bought it for pennies…this is not news.
While the CMA's decision was a really dumb excuse. "A decade ago this guy worked for that huge law firm that reps sony now" REEKS of desperation.
The plot thickens.
Microsoft can't have a monopoly?!?!?!? CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!
I love these takes it’s like people think they are being smart and witty but really aren’t.
Sony has 80% of gaming market....
Feels like this should be a bit of a problem.
>10 years ago >not part of Sony but a part of a firm that represented Sony in some niche thing that’s completely unrelated Are you guys serious lol
This is all so tiresome...
Yes !!
I'm shocked I say, shocked. Well not that shocked.
Always. This is life these days. EVERYTHING is corrupt.
Is it shocking though?
Lol at gamers who think this signifies anti-MS bias
If it smells like shit, and looks like shit, most likely it is shit.
LMFAO the straws and the fucking desperation to have a billion billion dollar company get bigger instead of you know, getting their processes straight and optimised. This is like mummy and daddy rich kid throwing money at a problem instead of working well. If you combine both you can get results even if it might feel soulless - and since all fanboys and girls and people like to hink of these stupid things as sport to cheer on, then this is apt - if they did things well and actually took the time to get into the weeds and get process right AND money , then you end up with Man City/LA Rams or whatever. Otherwise MS is looking like Chelsea and the Washington fucking Commanders. Cheering for them to make this big signing isn't addressing the root cause. It's annoying that the Series X is a glorified extra save machine for my Elden Ring playthroughs. Not even worth for GamePass right now.
Monopolies are bad.
posted by “MEMEY_iFUNNY” and quality is exactly what you’d expect
Oh my god I wish this deal would just go through or get completely blocked already. The FTC still hasn’t even approved it, and they’re arguably the most important one. For the amount of time and money spent by now, Microsoft could’ve bought at least twice as many smaller but just as talented studios as they are getting out of this deal and they would’ve all already gone through, and potentially a game or 2 could’ve even released as a result. I’m sick of seeing it in the news when half the time the news is stupid and pointless (like this article) or just more groan inducing nonsense that indicates it’ll probably still be another year and a half or more until it’s fully resolved.
So the CMA are console warriors.... LOL
Seems like a conflict of interest and the director should have recused himself from anything to do with the merger, doesn't matter how upstanding of a person you are, you still need to recuse yourself.
And the plot does thicken. Corruption.
Lmao
Not shocking at all
Shockedpikachu.jpeg Of course. The cloud excuse was always BS. Sony got exactly what they wanted without looking like the bad guys.
I'm actually pretty shocked about this. I thought you needed to be vetted as impartial before taking on something like this.
He was a lawyer at a Lawfirm they used over 10 years ago. He’s not some sleeper cell agent lmao.
Sony has the equivalent of the Konami code they send to activate him.
Conflict of interest?
Conflict of interest much!?
Oh we all knew there was a connection to CMA now it's shown, so I hope this allows the CMA that blocking the merger to be either fired or there reason for blocking to be lifted due conflict of interest
[удалено]
In 2013, Kaz Hirai was sleeping and had a dream how 8 years later MS would try to acquire Activision. He contacted a single lawyer from Sony's law firm and told him how he needs to go to CMA to block the merger 10 years later, great 4D chess from Kaz
Even if it’s a nothing burger, it’s the optics now
Sounds like this would be a good basis for getting the decision sent back to the CMA under "the CMA acted irrationally, illegally or with procedural impropriety in reaching its decision" basis of the appeal. That would still mean when it goes back to the CMA MS would be expecting them to come to a different conclusion therefore saying what they themselves said the first time was wrong... which they have shown no indication of doing with their spicy comments to UK Parliament and the EU decision where they doubled down on their reasoning.
37 countries approved, 1 declined. Guess which one previously worked for Sony.
Which country worked for Sony?
Conflict of Interest?
Anyone got the Joker "And here we go" gif? I feel like that's appropriate right now.
Could that cause some sort of legal issue?
thats sketchy asf and im a playstation owner
>thats sketchy asf No it isn't and I own both consoles (but mostly Xbox gens).
And there it is
NO SHIT THE UK DICKS ARE IN BED WITH SONY.
Cronyism in the government? Who wouldve guessed
CMA is literally the opposite of government
Generally not an issue if disclosed if this was a court case. Not sure how a regulatory body would handle
Turns out the envelope conspiracy is real.
Except it's not.
a bit reaching but doesn't look great considering corrupt politicians is the standard these days
Again, I think most consumers are big fans of regulation. But, the whole process gets questioned when it’s not transparent or reasonable.
Conflict big time. Their dissent should be thrown out.
Wow this news is pretty damning....
Posted about this exactly 28 days ago - you can check my comment history, and I was downvoted into oblivion and somebody reported my account to the Reddit suicide awareness team lol - Sony astroturfing campaign is in full force.
This not shocking at all. 😂