Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft

Microsoft, Activision Back Off Aggressive Claim in FTC Case (axios.com) 37

Microsoft says it made a mistake last month when it claimed that the very structure of Federal Trade Commission, the agency trying to block its bid for Activision Blizzard, violates the United States Constitution. From a report: Microsoft removed that argument Thursday as it filed a revised -- and less incendiary -- response to the FTC's lawsuit to stop the tech giant's $69 billion gaming acquisition. Microsoft's new filing still argues that its purchase of the creator of Call of Duty, World of Warcraft and Candy Crush would not unfairly stifle competition with other game makers. But it no longer includes a five-bullet-point salvo claiming that the FTC's structure and in-house administrative court, where the Activision case is being heard, run afoul of the Constitution, the separation of powers and the due process clause of the 5th Amendment.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft, Activision Back Off Aggressive Claim in FTC Case

Comments Filter:
  • by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Friday January 06, 2023 @10:02AM (#63184662) Homepage Journal

    It's not like there is a clause that grants Congress the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

    • I think you're forgetting about the "Microsoft" clause in the constitution that says they can do anything they want. Abe Lincoln wrote it in 1776. He made it out of matchsticks on his death bed.
    • by guruevi ( 827432 )

      As you pointed it says clearly "Congress".

      The FTC and most 3-letter agencies are a part of the Executive Branch (part of why a President has so much power) and thus not under the power of "Congress".

      • by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Friday January 06, 2023 @11:12AM (#63184940) Homepage Journal

        And created in 1914 by an Act of Congress. Ooopsie

        Would it surprise you that the Legislative branch doesn't manage the day to day operations of government. It's almost like there is another branch that oversees that.

        Hmmm.. I feel like 10th grade civics/social studies class rushing back to me.

        • by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

          Indeed. Power of legislative is in crafting legislation that is executed by the executive branch. I.e. "power vested in legislative" means that legislative can legislate both the rules on the subject and organisations to enact those laws.

          Microsoft's argument is utterly insane.

          • As much as I would like to agree with you on the "Their argument is insane" sentiment (and I DO think you are correct.) it's getting impossible to tell where the mega corporations end and the "government" begins, and has been for many decades now. Worse since "speech" was essentially equated with money.
            Government and big business employ the same people more often than not, many times literally writing the proposals that "Congress" then rubber stamps into law. Add to that the rise of propaganda-as-news becau

        • by guruevi ( 827432 )

          The problem is that the FTC has granted itself powers, including its own internal judiciary branch that were not and could not be delegated by either the executive or legislative branch. If the FTC rules aren't being followed, they should sue in court. Just because congress delegates some of its own powers does not mean that the agency therefore is above the law.

          There is another pending case (Axon vs FTC) that creates the same challenge as Microsoft did.

          • Administrative Law courts are not unconstitutional, the FCC didn't 'grant itself' the power to have one, and that isn't what either of these cases is or were about.
          • The Supreme Court has time and time again recognized Article I (legislative) judges. Where contention currently lies is in how they are selected and appointed. Not in that they are allowed to exist at all.

      • Those agencies were created by congress though. Congress does not micromanage commerce. Some may argue that the original form of the constitution left that micromanagement to the states, but that is archaic and long outdated after many amendments and a civil war. And yet I see quite a lot of prominent people espousing such ideas and praising originalism.

        I suspect that having Microsoft laywers pull some of these arguments out of a dusty bin surprised some higher ups in that company who quickly called the

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      SCOTUS ruled last year that administrative courts are Unconstitutional.

      FTC may make a referral to the DoJ for prosecution under the auspices of the Judicial Branch if it wants to have a trial.

      Executive Branch courts are now deemed illegal.

      Most likely Microsoft thinks it can win without going to SCOTUS to have them slap down FTC so they withdrew the claim for expediency. But they're not wrong.

      • ALJ [wikipedia.org] are still legally recognized in the US. You may appeal a decision of an Administrative Law court to a higher court, but otherwise the results of an administrative law court or tribunal are binding. All this is also in the Constitution. [congress.gov] (last part of the first sentence)

        Have a nice day!

        • by zlives ( 2009072 )

          i for one, wonder how the executive should exercise the powers given by the sherman act...

      • SCOTUS ruled last year that administrative courts are Unconstitutional.

        If by "SCOTUS" you mean "Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals", and by "administrative courts" you mean "the particular manner in which the SEC operates its administrative court", then you are absolutely right. Otherwise, that is hilariously incorrect and stupid.

        Executive Branch courts are now deemed illegal.

        Well, looks like my second theory was the correct one.

  • The current for profit inflation yields to the fact that there are too many monopolies, not enough competition.
    That is exactly why this acquisition and all others really need to be stopped.
  • How is it that they weren't a illegal monopoly?
    • Some judge in Minnesota quietly folded on it at the last second. I assume there was both threats and bribery involved.

  • Is this the global-stage corporate equivalent of an angry basement gamer posting "kill yourself" when he loses a round of CoD?
  • I just read the original filing, and the constitutional objections to the FTC could be applied to virtually any administrative agency that has significant judicial-style power without a normal judge being involved, any agency that has an enforcement mission instead of just waiting for claims as a neutral arbiter, and any agency with powers that encompass the powers of all three branches of government instead of having those powers separated. If these arguments were new, we might have some real issues here,

  • Why is it a huge deal to say "they're trying to hide proceedings, or change the rules...and we want regular court". Instead you take the argument to move venues...and make it into an argument against the FTC itself?

    Please put AI here (news). And let it hear me when I say I don't want click bait and hyperbole. Just tell me like it is. And a negative incentive to not waste my time.

"Pok pok pok, P'kok!" -- Superchicken

Working...