Europe approves of the Activizzard merger
by Samuel Axon 
Apr 17th 2008 at 6:00PM
Approval by the European Commission was necessary because Vivendi (the owner of Blizzard and now the buyer of Activision, if you haven't been keeping up with all this) is a French media company, and therefore subject to EU business laws and antitrust concerns. Officials were mulling over the merger because of fears that Vivendi's ownership of Universal Music Group would give Activision Blizzard an unfair advantage in licensing music for games like Guitar Hero.
They finally decided that it's not a threat to the health of the market, and approved the merger. So there it is. It's done. The government can't save you now; Activision Blizzard is your new master. I tremble in terror before the fictional (yet somehow inevitable) Bard class and its l33t Guitar Hero skillz!
Filed under: Blizzard, News items
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Treima Apr 17th 2008 6:11PM
As long as this means we can play the WoW theme in Guitar Hero 4, I'm fine with it.
Badger Apr 17th 2008 8:54PM
Now THAT ... would be *EPIC.*
Matt Apr 17th 2008 6:21PM
I'm not a Euro hater. What I am is a big government hater... unfortunately Europe is all about some big government. It disgust me that Blizzard and Activison have to get approval from some arbitrary economic regulatory committee... Is their business, employees, resources,.... they can do what the eff they want with it and call what ever they want. And some old hags sitting on some council trying to decide if this is a good decission is not only arbitrary, it is pretentious
Samuel Axon Apr 17th 2008 6:35PM
Mergers of this size must be approved by government regulators in virtually all developed nations, including the United States. If Vivendi was based in New York instead of Paris, a similar submission for approval and ensuing investigation and determination would have had to occur. Same with Japan, India, or China.
Those governments are concerned that the mergers could form monopolies that are bad for consumers and that prevent new businesses from entering the industry. I'm not debating the merits or problems with that policy; that's a very complicated issue. I'm just clarifying.
It is definitely true that the E.U. has a reputation for being a little less lenient than the U.S. in this regard, though.
Matt Apr 17th 2008 7:29PM
I understand the reasoning. But I ought right question that reasoning. Monopolies aren't a problem in a free market... in fact they are non-existent. Monopolies and Corporations come from result of the state.
Also this is a question about the legitimacy of intellectual property. And the right of a company to have a monopoly on abstract property.
So its not a question of preventing monopolies but one of which the economic Regulatory commission believes are more "legitimate"... making it arbitrary and as I said earlier pretentious.
Nizari Apr 17th 2008 8:17PM
Monopolies are non-existent in a free market? Yeah, that totally works, as long as you ignore AT&T, De Beers diamonds, and Standard Oil. Oh, and ignore the fact that the monopolies of AT&T and Standard Oil were broken up, get this, by regulatory commissions!
If you want to argue for smaller government, that's one thing, but claiming that free markets are immune to monopolies is blind ideology.
Matt Apr 17th 2008 9:22PM
I'm not ignoring AT&T, De Beers diamonds, and Standard Oil at all.
AT&T wasn't a "natural" monopoly. It didn't arise because the free markets allowed it too somehow. AT&T was a monopoly created by the state. With the patent rights that gave them a unnatural monopoly. Then the The Kingsbury Commitment put a nail in the coffin for the possibility of any competition.
Adam D. Thierer has a great article called "UNNATURAL MONOPOLY: CRITICAL MOMENTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BELL SYSTEM MONOPOLY" Check it out
Da Beers can hardly be called a monopoly that naturally occurred. The company is given land to use by governments in Africa for pay offs. This is another monopoly created by the state.
Standard Oil was not a monopoly plain and simple. You will find few economist that say it was a monopoly. It was labeled as one and painted as evil. But it wasn't a monopoly.
Nizari Apr 18th 2008 12:16AM
Oh yes, I'm sure a guy who used to work at the highly partisan, conservative propaganda thinktanks the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation is going to offer a balanced, objective look at monopoly regulation laws.
Oh, and just because you say that most economists say Standard Oil wasn't a monopoly doesn't mean it's true; show me don't tell me. Of course, given the example of an economic "expert" you gave regarding AT&T, my guess is you don't consider anyone who isn't a free market ideology to be an economist.
Matt Apr 18th 2008 7:50AM
haha w/e you say man. If all you can come back with is saying this is propaganda. Then it shows your argument is weak. I illustrated why AT&T and De Beers diamonds are monopolies created by the state. Also Standard Oil didn't have complete control of the oil market so it wasn't a monopoly. That isn't an opinion its fact. You can see the numbers and conclude they were not a monopoly regardless of ones bias.
Badger Apr 17th 2008 8:56PM
I don't understand why you guys keep calling this the "Blizzard-Activision" merger. Isn't it the "Vivendi-Activision" merger? Blizzard is just one part of Vivendi, which also, to my knowledge, owns Sierra Studios IP rights from waaaaaay back. The fact that Vivendi was already so huge was what made government in the EU stop and think before giving it the go-ahead.
Super Guest Man 9000 Apr 17th 2008 11:43PM
I for one welcome our new Activision overlords.
Christian Stricker Apr 18th 2008 2:38AM
"Europe approves of the Activizzard merger"
...
"It's literally official now, as European Union officials have finally approved the merger after several weeks of deliberating on the issue."
What the...?