Everyone insane or what?

For me, the false positive situation is true regardless of the tool and what level of analysis it performs, because the cost is the same -- I have to go through the bogus reports, figure out what it's suggesting, determine that it's wrong, and dismiss the report. I might hope that a tool capable of higher level analysis has a lower false positive rate (often Coverity f.p. reports are a result of an inability to see the higher level), but if it doesn't in practice have a low f.p. rate then it's just as bad and timewasting as any other.