They aren't usually good in the other parts, either. There is a lot of passion, but once you get beyond the "forcefulness", it gets worse in my experience.

It's a lot of bloviation, and when you get into the details, he often will, charitably, take interesting interpretations of the actual opinions and views of courts and others, especially when they disagree with his view. Once I read enough to have a sense of continuity (IE how did claims/views/predictions turn out), I ended up giving up my subscription because i just couldn't read it anymore. There are those who are much better at representing what's going on as a whole in a thing, even when they have a point of view and share it. It's not as passionate, for sure, but I find it more useful and enjoyable in the end, whether i agree or not.

In Matt's case, let's take this one: "Judge Mehta tossed these claims, saying that services like Yelp and Expedia aren’t general search engines and are therefore not in the same market as Google. It was a highly technical and annoying way to read certain legal questions, but bringing an antitrust case has become virtually impossible unless it’s done perfectly."

First, no, it's a super standard way in antitrust to try to actually define the markets. It's not highly technical or annoying, just because Matt thinks it is somehow wrong.

You'll note that Matt does what he often does here - when he can't explain why he's right, things become more abstract - there aren't any examples of how it was "highly technical" or "annoying" or what "certain legal questions" are. Not a single example anywhere to be found Or even an example that backs up that it is "virtually impossible" to bring antitrust cases unless they are "done perfectly". Nope, just some abstract complaint and throwaway language about how, you know, whatever he said in the last newsletter about how this part was gonna be a slam dunk or whatever is really right, it's just, you know, "highly technical" things got in the way.

Let's look at what actually happened here: No, the judge did not throw them out because they aren't general search engines. He threw it out because they rely entirely on an expert who cites no evidence, only theorization, and he felt the plaintiffs were way short on the evidence.

See page 46 of the opinion. "The court agrees with Google’s second argument.16 Plaintiffs’ theory of anticompetitive harm rests on a multi-linked causal sequence that relies not on evidence but almost entirely on the opinion and speculation of its expert, Professor Jonathan Baker. Plaintiffs cite Professor Baker’s report for the following propositions:

< a page elided >

Remarkably, not one of Professor Baker’s opinions, on which these fact assertions are based, cites to any record evidence.

Indeed, a closer inspection of Professor Baker's reports shows he has largely theorized the anticompetitive effects in the relevant market of Google's conduct toward the SVP's ...

Plaintiffs are required to show with proof "that the monopolist's conduct indeed has the requisite anticompetitive effect", and they have fallen well short of that burden".

This isn't even the end.

It goes on, where the Judge points out this state at oral argument and the states confirm they have no evidence, etc.

It then explains why unsupported expert opinions aren't enough to get past summary judgement, etc. It is a clear step by step refutation of the claims, unrelated to the market question.

So to where we started, this is not a problem of "oh they aren't general search engines" or "you have to do it perfectly" - this is literally "you haven't proven anything".

I stick with the folks who are willing to change their opinions and views based on what actually happens, rather than those who try to change reality to fit what they said before.