Freshly Exhumed writes: Robert Bork, the fiery former federal judge whose U.S. Supreme Court nomination battle galvanized a generation of conservative activists, spent the late 1990s arguing that Microsoft should be carved up into multiple pieces because of antitrust violations. Bork, an antitrust scholar and author of a landmark book on the topic, is now saying that Google is no Microsoft. In a new analysis released at an event in Washington, D.C., today, Bork offers a point-by-point refutation of claims that Google has violated the law or acted in an anticompetitive fashion. Rather, Bork says, it's a case of competitors' sour grapes. 'None of the purported antitrust problems that Google's critics have raised indicates that Google is behaving anticompetitively,' concludes the 29-page legal analysis. 'Given the serious factual, logical, and economic flaws in the antitrust complaints about Google's practices, one can reasonably conclude only that Google's competitors are seeking to use antitrust law to protect their own market positions.'