1. Google is simply buying more politicians these days: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=B12&year... - helps to get pesky investigations blown over, I guess ;-) I don't blame them either, just the way the world works. Microsoft's mistake was not doing it sooner when they were getting investigated.

2. PJ's analysis might have been useful in the SCO days, but really, her knowledge of other topics that I'm more conversant with (specifically, patents) was woefully lacking. Not sure if she'd have done any better with antitrust laws.

She was not a SME to every patent in litigation but her forum attracted tons of incredible insight. It was not a solo act, to be sure. I guess the person is a shorthand for the forum when I refer to her by name.

I'm not sure I saw any "insight" over there that was different from what I see on Slashdot and most of HN. While there were a few knowledgeable posters, they were mostly drowned out by the noise.

If there was any insight on slashdot, it was drowned out by the noise a long time ago. The S/N ratio on GrokLaw was incredible. If you didn't get that, you just weren't paying attention. There hasn't been a law blog like it, since.

Oh I was paying attention (with the caveat that I started reading it late, around 2007 or so). I just happened to also understand the relevant legal aspects better than PJ and 99% of the posters, who, let's admit it, were software nerds like you and me. The difference is, I had familiarized myself with aspects of the laws in question, whereas most of the posters blindly spewed their ideological beliefs.

For instance, I enjoyed the essays by PoiR, which made a lot of germane references to case law and CS theories, but their premises had tenuous connection to legal reality at best. Or guest posts by mrisch, an actual legal scholar, whose posts were rewarded with comments no better than Slashdot, drowning out any thoughtful conversation. And even then, how many such essays were ever posted? If you thought most of the stuff posted there was good "signal", it probably just means you are not familiar with the legal aspects and enjoyed the content because it appealed to your biases.