Displaying items by tag: AntiTrust

So, it seems that under direct questioning Microsoft has been forced to admit that cloud gaming is not as big of a deal as they have been saying it is. We have long held that their generous 10-year cloud licensing deal for cloud gaming was not an honest attempt at competition. After all cloud gaming represents a little less than 1% of the total gaming market. Now Sarah Bond has admitted that it is not a popular option and that it is most commonly used as a feature for Microsoft consoles.

Unless you have been living under a rock or just do not care about gaming at all, you have probably heard a lot about the Microsoft Activision merger/acquisition. The deal, one of the largest in history, is a monster. Microsoft wants to buy, lock, stock and barrel, the Activision Blizzard game development company for a whopping $68.7 Billion (with a “b”). The deal would give Microsoft complete control over everything Activision/Blizzard. Now for some this might not be a bad thing if you look at it from just a game perspective or if you are just a PC gamer. The problem comes when you get into how games are really developed and how game developers work with component and console makers to ensure their games work properly.

In our coverage of the Microsoft Activision/Blizzard deal we have often wondered why so many of the groups that approved the deal, and one that opposed it, focused only on cloud gaming. We saw the UK say that the deal was bad for cloud gaming while others stated that a 10-year licensing deal for cloud gaming services that Microsoft agreed to made everything all better. As we looked over the approvals and oppositions this odd focus on what represents less than 1% of the gaming market seemed so out of place that started to feel that the opposition was just a token resistance and the deal (which is a bad thing) was just going to get rubber stamped.

There is no such thing as a coincidence, especially in the business world. If you hear of something and the timing seems suspicious, it is because someone pushed something in the right direction at the right time. This is the case that we see here with Sony now being under investigation by the Romanian Competition Council for possible market abuse at a time when Microsoft is trying to gain a market advantage. If this news does not seem odd to you, you might not be paying attention.

Yesterday we talked about how the Microsoft Activision Blizzard deal had been approved by the European Commission (on antitrust) touting licensing deals that were pro competition. As we stated in that article, the licensing agreements only extend to cloud gaming services, they exclude consoles and other non-Microsoft controlled hardware. The EC and Microsoft are calling this very pro-competition even though cloud gaming represents around 1% of the market.

Remember that pesky anti-trust suit that Apple faced over fixing eBook prices with publishers? Well if not, let me remind you. When Apple brought their eBook store to iOS they knew they were facing an uphill battle against Amazon. To counter this they worked out a deal with several publishers to fix prices at a certain level and also to guarantee that they got the best prices along with a few exclusive books. They were found guilty of this and are supposed to be making amends for it along with having a watchdog looking over their shoulders.

The business world in the US is a funny thing especially when it comes to legal matters. There is an unwritten rule that seems to be in use when companies break the law. This rule is all about making sure not to hurt the business regardless of the damage a company does to consumers or anything else really. We are seeing a great example of this with the Apple eBook price fixing trial. Although Apple was found to have conspired to fix prices at a much higher point that the market standard (by forcing an agency model) they still feel they should not have any consequences for this action.

As expected US District Judge Denise Cote found that Apple did collude with five publishers to fix eBook prices in 2010. Although it appeared to come as a shock to some it was something that many analysts saw as inevitable. Apple faced a mountain of evidence that showed Apple acting to push the new “agency” model and then establish price guides for new books. These caps on eBook prices (along with the most favored nation clause) are what allowed Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin and Simon & Schuster to move away from the $9.99 that Amazon was setting to $12.99 and $14.99.

During the Samsung V Apple patent trail we briefly covered some of the requirements that Apple has if you want to sell their products. These requirements include a minimum purchase order, marketing material, special cabinets and displays for Apple products and more. These tactics make it seem almost impossible that anyone would be confused about what they were buying (unless the sales person was not honest). Our coverage was more about the ridiculous claim that Samsung and other Android tablets were creating marketing confusion, but we also talked a little about how these marketing requirements were a little anti-competitive.

Apple has become very brave in the light of their apparent victory over Samsung in Judge Lucy Koh’s court room. Despite potential issues with the verdict including evidence that the jury ignored the explicit instructions that were directly read to them by Judge Koh and written in several places, Apple is riding on a wave of euphoria that has caused them to expand their attack against Samsung. This was not overlay surprising as Apple is confident that the US population is ignorant of the concept of Prior Art, the differences between being inspired by a design and copying as well as some of the basic concepts behind software development (and that nagging little detail that prevents you from copyrighting a UI).