[embedding-shape]

> The FTC isn't there to stop corporations from making mistakes.

That's not the point parent is trying to make either, but FTC was supposed to prevent detrimental anti-competitive and monopolistic behaviors, which that very much was.

[pfdietz]

I don't think you can view the horrific performance of MSFT's gaming division as an example of successful anticompetitive behavior. It is not in any way sustainable, as demonstrated by their slash and burn actions now.

[embedding-shape]

And you're arguing that FTC should only act against potentially successful anti-competitive and monopolistic behavior? Who cares how high the chance of "success" (from Microsoft's POV), shitty behaviour is shitty behaviour, regardless or not if it's successful.

[pfdietz]

Yes, let's penalize entities for pre-crime. What could possibly be wrong with that? /s

[thewebguyd]

Prosecutable anticompetitive behavior doesn't require success or not. Antitrust law forbids "attempted monopolization" doesn't matter if the monopolist succeeds or not. Its about intent and systemic harm, and slash and burn tactics does often run afoul of antitrust laws. Its structural risk to the market, not precrime.

The FTC's role is to block mergers where the effect "may be substantially to lessen competition, or tend to create a monopoly." Merger review by design is predictive.