1. So I took a quick look at the study you cited. That article finds no such thing as "extensive corruption". It identifies a very real problem, in that many co

1. So I took a quick look at the study you cited. That article finds no such thing as "extensive corruption". It identifies a very real problem, in that many court decisions seem to indirectly rely on arguments made by non-peer reviewed "law review" articles published in venues with poor to no quality control. Some of these studies are funded by companies that have an interest in the results being in their favor, and thus present a vector for industry to subtly influence courts. It also highlights that courts are very aware of such influences, though they are imperfect in avoiding them. But as far as the data goes, the study takes "punitive damages" as an example topic and finds, out of a sample set of thousands, only 14 potential culpable studies that were industry-funded. The author attempts to make a case that these studies were more influential than their numbers suggest, but the fact remains that they represent only about a couple of percent of the sample size. At least as far as that study is concerned, it does highlight a real concern, but I could find no indication of "systematic" or "extensive", or indeed any real "corruption" in it. 2. Despite all the whitewashing folks try to do with respect to the Swartz, MIT, Harvard and access to JSTOR, it does not change the fact that he hid his face from the camera when sneaking into the closet where he hid his machine, and he ran from the authorities when they approached him. If he felt he truly was in the right, he did not need to act like a common criminal.