I stand corrected. The biggest problem is opinionated idiots. Thanks for pointing that out.

Did you really think my over-the-top hyperbole was a serious discussion of practical solutions? It wasn't meant to be. Sorry if that confused you to the point where you felt the need to devise your own straw man.

Best of luck wishing for a better world where things just sort themselves out. That's definitely practical, and so very likely.

And your answer to this supposed problem you raise, Mr. Cynic, would be... what?

Raise court fees from people who raise an issue with the election system?
Fine, or throw people in jail if the judge happens to rule against them?
Solve disputes the old fashioned way, in the Colosseum?

Way bigger a problem than the money spent on this minor lawsuit, is that we have taxpayers who are useless asshats who can only complain when taxes aren't spent on them personally, but couldn't be bothered to spend a minute to come up with a better idea.

Pretty much. And the result was we live in a better, more private world thanks to it (assuming Google stays the course, of course).

Actually, that could be a good thing here in the United States.

Americans are stupid to not only expect, but actually believe that their politicians are a bunch of perfect little angels. They're fucking politicians for crying out loud. But we forget that and miss the contradiction come election time.

In a world where you know politicians are flawed from the start, people might actually care about important issues like policy, campaign bankrollers, and puppetmasters like turdblossom.

It's been a long time since I studied this in detail back in school, but I'm pretty sure that Maggie Simpson and Mickey Mouse are "fiction".

Kind of like the story of creation.

Dude, you're in public. Chill the hell out and quit being an ass. Nobody cares about your crush on that other guy.

I wouldn't worry about it.

First, it's not like you solicited him for your queer "man on dog" sex.
Second- like that clown could win the batshit party nomination, let alone the presidency and get protection.
Third- he doesn't believe in using protection anyway.

Google isn't in the business of determining truth. Only relevance. Figuring out which information to believe is still your job.

1) Patent trolls who don't have a product are in no position to threaten a large company. Except in the unusual case of an SCO whose litigation is funded by a major corporation, they can't afford to bring a proper lawsuit.
2) The purpose of cooperation is analogous to the NATO alliance. Yes, Microsoft and Apple are large and would risk a strategically sound suit against Google, risking an equivalent counter-suit. But they wouldn't dare attack a member of a co-op, which would retaliate with a massive number of patent suits, after which they would settle out of court at a major loss.
3) The co-op not only provides a legal defense, but can also yield members a major spike in consumer approval. You become one of the good guys by not spending revenues on legal maneuvers.

The bigger concern is if several of these arise and a "world war" ensues.

Indeed. And good point with the TV analogy: Faux News yammers on about its ratings, but it's proven to provide low-quality content.

If Plus were laden with advertising the way Facebook is, Google might think that users spending an excessive amount of time on-site is a good metric. But Google+ has no ads that I've noticed, where Facebook has an annoying mess of them.

So what we've got is an apples-to-oranges comparison. (assuming Google actually keeps ads out of the site, an intention which is completely unknown),