What I mean by acquisitions to kill tech
We use the term to describe purchases where a dominant company buys a young rival and then shelves its product, patents or talent. The academic concept of "killer acquisitions" is established by Cunningham, Ederer, Ma and Stern in their working paper on the subject. Their research shows patterns where incumbents buy potential competitors and the acquired projects often stop. That research helps explain why startups with promising patents can disappear into corporate vaults rather than reach consumers.
Follow the money: donors, lobbying and foundations
When I look at these deals I do not stop at the acquisition price. I pull campaign finance data from OpenSecrets and corporate lobbying disclosures from the US Senate and European registers. Large tech firms spend heavily on lobbying and donate through PACs and corporate foundations. These flows do not prove direct control over regulatory decisions. They do however create incentives and access. For example funders who also back think tanks and trade associations can shape the policy debate on competition rules. Public records often show the same names across corporate giving, industry groups and foundations.
Patents, vaults and public filings
Company filings and patent office records are reliable traces. I crosscheck SEC filings and patent assignments to see if intellectual property lands in a separate holding company or an in-house "vault". Companies sometimes list acquired IP in annual reports and 10 Ks and they sometimes do not. Where filings are clear I cite them. Where they are opaque we point to the registration or lack of it and the possible reasons behind secrecy.
Think tanks and narrative shaping
Think tanks and policy groups funded by corporate donors often publish reports that tilt the debate away from strict merger scrutiny. I examine donor lists, charity reports and grant registers to map these relationships. That mapping suggests lines of influence that can help explain softer regulatory stances. It is important to stress that donations and research outputs suggest influence rather than prove a formal chain of command.
Regulators and public pressure
Regulatory action changes outcomes. The FTC action against Facebook is a clear instance where public enforcement sought to unwind past buys. Press coverage and regulator releases are essential source material. Where regulators act they can reopen markets and deter future vaulting. Where regulators stand down the incentives for strategic buyouts remain larger.
Our reporting draws on academic work, public records, company filings and campaign finance databases to map this ecosystem. We credit the researchers and regulators who make these traces visible. Below you will find the references and sources we used in this briefing.
Sign up to our newsletter for daily briefs.