Some folks visit this site by choice — they search the web and come to us.

Others, however, now subscribe by a “Google E-Mail Group,” which means that we inflict an e-mail on you every time we publish a post. That briefly made us more reluctant to waste your time by posting off-topic or frivolous stuff.

Good news: We’ve gotten over it!

We have two slightly off-topic asides this morning.

First, Kevin LaCroix posts over at the D and O Diary about the recent dismissal of two securities fraud lawsuits filed against drug and device companies. The case against Guidant pleaded that insiders at the company were aware of, but failed to disclose, defects in certain implantable defibrillators and pacemakers; the Pfizer case pleaded that the company made misleading statements about its clinical trials of torcetrapib (a cholesterol drug) before terminating the trials. Courts recently granted motions to dismiss both cases.

We’re noting those decisions for two reasons:

First, they’ll generally be of interest to lawyers at drug and device companies.

Second, we wanted to prove that we’re not one-trick ponies: We can spell both “FDA” and “10b-5.”

There’s also a new post at Prism Legal reacting to our post from Friday about the value of blogs. Prism suggests that big law firms should prefer “branded” blogs — blogs formally affiliated with firms — to non-branded ones for several reasons.

That doesn’t quite work for us — because the two of us work at different firms and are thus head-to-head competitors for business in our day jobs — but, to our eye, this suggestion may make sense for more typical blogging endeavors.

Back to products liability law with our next post.