Microsoft Says It Has No Idea When Call of Duty Came Out (theverge.com) 35
An anonymous reader shares a report: One year ago this month, Microsoft announced it would spend $68.7 billion to acquire Activision Blizzard, highlighting how it would get "iconic franchises" including Call of Duty, Warcraft and Candy Crush for that fee. But now that gamers and regulators are worrying Microsoft might keep Call of Duty from appearing on Sony's PlayStation, Microsoft's lawyers are suddenly pretending they have no idea why Call of Duty is special. Or even when it came out, for that matter.
As Matt Stoller notes, the company's 37-page reply to the FTC lawsuit seeking to block the Activision Blizzard deal includes this laughable passage: "Microsoft avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning industry perceptions of Call of Duty and Call of Duty's original release date; or as to the truth of the allegations concerning Call of Duty's launch and typical release schedule and the resources and budget Activision allocates to Call of Duty, including the number of studios that work on Call of Duty."
As Matt Stoller notes, the company's 37-page reply to the FTC lawsuit seeking to block the Activision Blizzard deal includes this laughable passage: "Microsoft avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning industry perceptions of Call of Duty and Call of Duty's original release date; or as to the truth of the allegations concerning Call of Duty's launch and typical release schedule and the resources and budget Activision allocates to Call of Duty, including the number of studios that work on Call of Duty."
FTC too late (Score:1)
The activision monster should have been stopped years ago. Being gobbled up by the Microsoft monster won't hurt consumers anymore than they have been already by Activision existing and gobbling up every studio/company they could get their hands on to crank out an endless series of sequels.
Not only did we used to get new original games from bigger studios but new genres as well. But that was a long time ago. But yay I guess it's a successful business model or they wouldn't spew out $Version+1 every year o
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course. It's not like Microsoft would tie purchase of it's new operating system to all new games to try and force gamers onto an OS which is even more invasive than the last one.
You sir, are what the literature refers to as "a fucking moron".
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you. Nailed it.
This is lawsuit boilerplate. (Score:5, Informative)
There is nothing special here. When responding to a legal paper, you have to respond to every clause in the paper. If it is something that is from your side, such as the name of your company, you accept it. If it is something you want decided in your favor, you allege it. If it is something the other side says, no matter how trivial, your response is that you have no knowledge or information.
So this means nothing. It is simply stating that these points listed in the the document they are responding to aren't in Microsoft's wheelhouse. If it is important to their opponent's case, their opponent will have to establish it. It isn't Microsoft's job to make their case easier.
Re: This is lawsuit boilerplate. (Score:2)
Re: This is lawsuit boilerplate. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:This is lawsuit boilerplate. (Score:5, Informative)
Came here to post this. You also have to read the sentence very carefully when parsing legalese. It does NOT say "we have no idea when call of Duty came out." What it says is we lack knowledge of "INDUSTRY PERCEPTIONS" and the "ALLEGATIONS" (which apparently concern budget allocations made by Activision) concerning the typical release schedule.
Re:This is lawsuit boilerplate. (Score:4, Insightful)
Came here to post this. You also have to read the sentence very carefully when parsing legalese. It does NOT say "we have no idea when call of Duty came out." What it says is we lack knowledge of "INDUSTRY PERCEPTIONS" and the "ALLEGATIONS" (which apparently concern budget allocations made by Activision) concerning the typical release schedule.
It's still a lie, though. Microsoft as an entity absolutely has enough information to "form a belief" about these things and almost certainly has such a belief. But that's reality, not whatever lawyers live in.
Re: (Score:2)
You are using "belief" in a colloquial sense, not a formal legal sense. It is not a lie, because "belief" doesn't mean that someone at Microsoft has a good idea of how they would answer these questions. In a set of interrogatories such as this, belief means a formal institutional position it would defend in court. You can't realistically expect Microsoft to have a formal institutional position on how Activision budgets for its COD releases.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they did. But they aren't going to form an opinion they would defend in court for the purposes of this lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
" it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning industry perceptions of Call of Duty and Call of Duty's original release date". So it's ambiguous. It could mean "(industry perceptions of Call of Duty) and (Call of Duty's original release date)" or it could mean "industry perceptions of (Call of Duty and Call of Duty's original release date)". The former would make more sense to me since the release date is an objective fact, so I don't know wh
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing special here. When responding to a legal paper, you have to respond to every clause in the paper. If it is something that is from your side, such as the name of your company, you accept it. If it is something you want decided in your favor, you allege it. If it is something the other side says, no matter how trivial, your response is that you have no knowledge or information.
So this means nothing. It is simply stating that these points listed in the the document they are responding to aren't in Microsoft's wheelhouse. If it is important to their opponent's case, their opponent will have to establish it. It isn't Microsoft's job to make their case easier.
It's part of a game to bury the other side in paperwork for the purpose of driving up costs for the opposing side (encouraging them to settle). And where do those costs go? Billable hours for the lawyers.
Would the legal system still consider it ethical to dishonestly play dumb if it wasn't so lucrative for lawyers?
Re: (Score:2)
I just want to say thank you. This is the type of reply that I (used to) love Slashdot for. Short, correct, on topic, to the point, and cutting through the sensationalist spin on TFA.
Re: (Score:2)
I think your analysis is correct. Other responses to you either elaborate a bit on it, or contain wishful thinking.
Obligatory (Score:1, Offtopic)
No (Score:2, Troll)
Microsoft avers that it lacks knowledge or info (Score:4, Funny)
In other words, Microsoft, as a whole, is incapable of using Google. Sorry, Bing.
Re: (Score:2)
Google? Bing? Are those similar to AltaVista and WebCrawler?
Signed,
Microsoft lawyers.
October 29, 2003 (Score:2)
Hey Microsoft, Call of Duty came out on October 29, 2003. I don't know when the next Call of Duty game will be released, but that is when "Call of Duty" "Came out".
Re: (Score:3)
Call of Duty is gay, confirmed.
Re: (Score:2)
Well thanks for teeling me something I will forget in the next 10 minutes.
COD is not for me, why would I remember. I hardly remember the date for games I do like. I am sure you have to look it up too, MS had no reason to know or look it up.
How is this supposed to work? (Score:2)
It's not even something where you can hope that intimidating techy jargon will make people's eyes glaze over. Sure, video games are incidentally software; but I'm pretty sure that the FTC knows w
Not sure you read the summary. (Score:2)
""Microsoft avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning industry perceptions of Call of Duty and Call of Duty's original release date; or as to the truth of the allegations concerning Call of Duty's launch and typical release schedule and the resources and budget Activision allocates to Call of Duty, including the number of studios that work on Call of Duty."
Parse it with a "lawyerly" critical eye. They aren't saying they couldn't f
Isn't this normal lawyering? (Score:2)
Classic IANAL moment here, but -- When responding to a lawsuit don't they have to say which points they agree or disagree with - and don't attorneys routinely disagree to every point so that they don't box themselves in?
Sonee? (Score:2)
This is a current state of knowledge declaration. (Score:2)
Whomever is formulating the response doesn't know the original CoD release date, doesn't think it matters, and doesn't particularly want to look it up. No big deal. If it matters, it'll come back around, and the responder will look it up. It's not a demand that they do research.
Me Neither. (Score:2)
I love my Xbox but crap like COD is not what I want.
Other people seem to so good luck to them.
I doubt it is in MS's interest to not be multiplatfoprm with COD. It's shovelware that needs spread wide or it will fade out (of which I really have no opinion on).
I have to side with their lawyers (Score:2)
I also can't see a reason why the fuck CoD would be special. Or relevant for that matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Because (Score:1)
Call of Duty is not special in any way, shape, or form. It's the same crappy game over and over again. Nothing ever changes. Nothing is ever new. It's the same thing with EA Sports games. Zero innovation. Zero improvements. Plus the stories are written at a 3rd grade level - which is fine for the would-be Marines, I suppose.
\o/ (Score:1)
What a bunch of bullshit. I propose that lawyers stay in their lane rather than