There is about to be a blockbuster merger between big tech and the gaming industry.
This week, the Supreme Court rules that it would not block the purchase of Activision Blizzard by Microsoft for $68.7 billion, reported the Washington Examiner.
With this decision, a merger is imminent.
Big Move
This is what always happens, right? Smaller companies hit it big, then hit it much bigger when a giant of the industry swoops them up in an acquisition.
Activision Blizzard, if you are not a gamer, is the developer of the Call of Duty series, one of the hottest games on the market.
The deal was initially approved by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley in San Francisco on June 11. She heard from executives from FTC, Microsoft, Sony, and Activision-Blizzard prior to releasing her decision.
On appeal, the case landed before Justice Elena Kagan, who declined to put a temporary injunction to block the merger, reported The Hill.
The filing read, "The merger between Microsoft and Activision would be one of, if not the largest technology mergers in history, at a time when concentration among technology companies is already threatening the competitive balance of our economy and even our political systems."
This is actually a case that will have worldwide ramifications, as several other countries were waiting on the decision from the Supreme Court before moving forward like cases in their countries.
For instance, the EU has already approved the merger, but the UK had initially tried to block it. Microsoft and the U.K.-based Competition and Markets Authority now have two months to resolve the dispute.
It is scary to think of the power and influence that Microsoft will have after this merger, with more acquisitions surely on the horizon once this one officially goes through.
We are getting eerily close to a monopoly in this sector, which was the exact fear of the plaintiffs in this case.
Let me leave you guys with one little thought here to spin up the conspiracy theorists...
Could it be possible that Kagan chose to allow this merger to take place because Gates is such a huge donor to Democrats and liberal causes? Would she have ruled in the same way had this been a conservative-owned tech company that was making this merger?
I hate to say it, but I think she would have ruled opposite had that been the case.
