In case you ever find yourself with as much leverage as Figma seemingly had… always negotiate a break up fee to compensate for exactly this.<p>T-Mobile famously got a $4B breakup fee after DOJ blocked ATT from acquiring them. That $4B was used to buy more spectrum and overhaul the brand, leading to huge growth to the point that T-Mobile is now a big 3 player (it used to be big 2 only).<p>If Figma wrangles $2-3B cash out of this, they could probably take down the entire adobe ecosystem.
I would not be surprised if Adobe intentionally added monopolistic terms to their deal with Figma or acted that the deal was monopolistic in front of antitrust officials in the hope that they might block the deal, considering that they are paying $20B for something that, in today's market, is worth way less than that.<p>If I am not mistaken, the fact that DOJ is preparing a suit means that the deal will not go through for at least a year or more, so Adobe can delay paying. They can also, intentionally, perform poorly in court to let DOJ get an easy win and avoid paying Figma.<p>In my opinion, the only losing party in this story is Figma. Adobe gets a chance to back out and DOJ gets a chance at an easy win. I am surprised FTC didn't jump on this, considering they are looking for wins, after their weak lawsuit against Meta's acquisition of Within.
Adobe pays a high valuation in an inflated market for Figma, to continue showing growth that has mostly stalled. Also helps them cross-sell their other products once they get into smaller companies where Figma has a strong foothold.<p>Market Tanks, valuations tank (to reasonable levels or perhaps still slightly inflated levels but not as crazy as before)<p>Generative AI brings a new threat (and new potential acquisition targets in the near future)<p>Adobe: How do we get out of this (now) bad deal? .....Oh wait..<p>DOJ: Preps anti-trust suit<p>... now Speculating....<p>Adobe doesn't really contend strongly the anti trust charge.
Pays $1B or so (saves $19B for future acquisitions)<p>Figma......some dreams crushed, but I guess $1B is not too shabby
That would be incredible, please do! Figma is the only design tool that actually approaches design from an engineering standpoint, which can be seen in their feature set of things like having reusable components, variants, inheritance etc, which then maps very cleanly onto the code side.
I don't agree on the Blizzard stuff but in this instance I agree with what the US government is doing. Adobe is a stronger hold on the design tools market than any other company and Figma was good competition
I have read more than once Adobe might secretly be ok with this. Price agreed to before valuations fully cratered.
I am sure Musk wished the DOJ could have helped him out as well.
my heart goes out to the employees. startup money ain't real til its in your bank account. Personally, it felt really bad when Plaid/Visa was blocked (I was at Plaid), but the anticompetition evidence was a tad too on the nose from Visa's end for the DOJ to let it go through.
This may ultimately be a positive outcome for those involved with Figma.<p>Consider Facebook's acquisition of WhatsApp and Instagram, which were acquired at what proved to be bargain prices. The founders came to regret the transaction, while Mr. Zuckerberg appeared prescient.<p>Although it may appear to be a challenging and lengthy path for Figma to achieve the acquisition premium on its own, I am of the belief that it is a more attainable goal than it may seem.<p>Moreover, it is worth noting that Adobe not only has the potential to be disrupted, but it is in fact in need of it. The company has been met with widespread criticism for various reasons, and as such, it presents an opportune market for Figma to capitalize upon.
They should have done it in 2005 and blocked the Macromedia acquisition.<p><a href="https://www.wired.com/2005/04/adobe-acquires-macromedia/" rel="nofollow">https://www.wired.com/2005/04/adobe-acquires-macromedia/</a>
To anyone who studies law in this area, is the DOJ at least consistent with regard to the deals they decide to block or allow to go through? I’m not asking whether they are making the <i>right</i> decision, but rather if whatever approach they use is applied the same way across cases each time.
<a href="https://archive.ph/QuoBQ" rel="nofollow">https://archive.ph/QuoBQ</a><p>isn't the way this works as follows?<p><pre><code> - bigtechco buys smalltechco
- merger happens for a few months, drama, layoffs, etc.
- doj sues
- judge/supremes block
</code></pre>
well, i see some articles talking about some "recent DOJ victories after a string of losses", so hopefully i'm wrong.<p>i don't understand why things work like this -- seems strange.<p>i did read how the supremes decided a long time ago that mergers/acquisitions were always good and right as long as prices went down or stayed low-ish temporarily -- that was the fiction they created, anyways.<p>and what's the pre-suit meeting about.<p><pre><code> DOJ: hey, stop this.
ADO: no.
DOJ: ok, then we filing suit.
ADO: ok.
DOJ: that's it?
ADO: yes.
DOJ: u sure? we really gonna do it..!!???
ADO: yeah, we know, thanks.</code></pre>