I'll admit when I'm wrong. The DOJ announced back in February that it was "preparing to sue", but appears to have never officially filed that lawsuit. My mistake.

Nonetheless, I think my point still stands in that the FTC and DOJ made how they felt about the deal pretty clear.

Your comments are straight up factually misrepresenting what happened. There were plenty of news reports early this year that DoJ was preparing to file suit against the merger. I guarantee they were in close contact with Adobe's lawyers, and the normal process here is that Adobe's lawyers/execs come back and say "hold up, let's see if we can make a deal" - that's essentially what happens in the vast majority of lawsuits.

Adobe (and Figma) knew full well this deal wasn't a slam dunk from the beginning.

Threatening a lawsuit is better than nothing but it definitely didn't lead to a quick resolution. At a certain point the answer to whether they can make a deal needs to be "no", not "we'll wait".

Well he works there and misses out on $$$$ hence his ire.

You’ve posted this about me twice. I haven’t shown any ire and I think it’s counter to the spirit of hacker news to suggest bad faith in my posts based on my proximity to the topic.

Yes, twice (pretty much within minutes of each other which made sense contextually, but you know that and are trying to muddy the waters) in one of the four threads and nine comments you have left disputing the actual published facts without mentioning you stood to profit from this, which is more than 'proximity to the topic'.

Your weasel words are weasley.

I'm not here to fight but it seems you are, especially as you are attempting to make me look the bad guy in a couple comments with innuendo about the spirit of HN and calling commenters 'the peanut gallery'.

I've made my point and you've rebutted there's no further value in arguing.

> Well he works there and misses out

That's a fine point to make

> hence his ire

Putting your spin on the actions of others is beyond rude

> Your weasel words are weasley.

That's 100% against the HN guidelines and community

I suggest if you wish to disagree then try doing it without being disagreeable

Have you mentioned at all in this thread where you are vociferously and borderline disingenuously defending your employer that you are in fact a figma employee?

Kinda relevant don’t you think?

Speaking for myself and not for Figma and I wouldn’t want to muddy that fact or imply that I have meaningful non-public information. I don’t think anything I’ve said is either vociferous or disingenuous.

I actually haven’t even said whether or not I agree with the decision or whether or not I think the timeline is reasonable (in the sense of whether the benefits and needs of the timeline justify the cost of it), so that doesn’t seem vociferous to me.

If I was being disingenuous I’d post on a throwaway, not an account that you can trivially connect to my identity.

You have meaningful non-public motive: probable millions to earn if this deal for through.

This deal already has fallen through. What I type here has no possible impact. So idk what the motive here really is.

I have a bunch of different feelings about it of course, but I think what I have said here has been factual and verifiable against public information.

One of the things I’ve always enjoyed about hacker news is that it isn’t purely a peanut gallery and people involved in the companies and technologies we talk about do post here. Attributing bad faith to those people when they do participate seems antithetical to the spirit of this place.

The DOJ immediately (less than a month) signaled they were against this and would sue, you disputing this = disingenuous.

You then left seven or eight comments defending that error.

It probably wouldn't have come off as so shady if you had mentioned your employer in the first place.