Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny

Post by JustExAWS » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 6:38 PM UTC

benreesman wrote: post #304

scarface_74 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It just happened with Windsurf and Google.

Windsurf getting "bought" such that the employees got nothing is a great recent example of why you want Lina Khan seeing to it that a healthy and well-regulated M&A market is in effect. That's precisely the kind of lowbrow shit you can thank her bought and paid for successors for bringing you the next decade's worth of.

Post by narcraft » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 6:45 PM UTC

brokencode wrote: post #305

narcraft wrote: post #299

There is another side to this coin: Figma's gain here is Adboe's loss. It doesn't make sense to use market-caps of specific companies as yardsticks of consumer welfare, which is the ultimate measure which antitrust actions seek to maximize. The tradeoffs of allowing or preventing the merger are more abstract and counterfactual. We cannot know for sure what the world in which Adobe successfully acquired Figma would lo…

We can’t know what would have happened exactly, but can be certain there would have been less competition if Adobe had acquired Figma. We can’t know for sure whether increased competition is going to lead to a better outcome here, but we can say with a high level of certainty that more competition usually leads to better outcomes. The fact that this also turned out to be fantastic for investors is just icing on the c…

Post by skrebbel » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 7:09 PM UTC

MrGilbert wrote: post #213

skrebbel wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do not "receive" VC, you sell shares (and control). You write as if it's some sort of grant that Figma uniquely got access to.

I think the more common term is to "raise money". But at the end, you receive money that you should spend. With strings attached, of course. That’s the nature of VC.

Post by assword » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 7:11 PM UTC

scarface_74 wrote: post #292

dabedee wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're hitting the real divide here. Some people are so ideologically opposed to any regulatory intervention that they can't admit when it works, even when the evidence is staring them in the face. Also notable [0]: "[...] in any given year, we see up to 3,000 merger filings that get reported to us. Around 2% of those actually get a second look by the government, so you have 98% of all deals that, for the mos…

So now the monopolies are just hiring away all of the people they want from the startup and leaving the company as a shell of its former self - leaving both investors and the employees left behind high and dry.

Post by brokencode » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 7:12 PM UTC

narcraft wrote: post #313

brokencode wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can’t know what would have happened exactly, but can be certain there would have been less competition if Adobe had acquired Figma. We can’t know for sure whether increased competition is going to lead to a better outcome here, but we can say with a high level of certainty that more competition usually leads to better outcomes. The fact that this also turned out to be fantastic for investors is just icing on the c…

Fantastic for investors in Figma specifically, not so fantastic for investors in Adobe. My point is that the IPO price and subsequent price increase are not themselves proof (or even relevant) that preventing the merger was a good thing. There most likely would have been fewer firms if the merger went through (though it could be possible that more competitors enter the market in that alternate timeline). Idk if that…