Is there an article actually linked? All I see is the footer for more from routers...
J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story
21–30 of 239 posts
Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story
#22So either 1) the lawyers ripped off J&J by spending time on this or 2) J&J management was so angry and irrational that they demanded the lawyers waste their time on this. Every lawyer worth their salt in America knows that you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something. That’s a prior restraint and is about as close as you can get to something absolutely forbidden under American law.
Why not both?
Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story
#23Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story
#24what's interesting is that they think to get a judge to do this, as in they consider it a viable strategy that may work. (which means it has worked before)
I mean someone must try a strategy the first time only hoping it will work, but it does seem suspicious as I wouldn't think of J&J as particularly innovative or daring.
Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story
#25I have seen several people talk personally about why they do not trust the vaccine from Johnson and Johnson on HN over the last year in various comments. Overwhelmingly they were attacked when they spoke on the cancer link with talc powder.
Regardless of the direct correlation or none at all to the 'contaminated' talc they were selling as a product with baby in the name, and it verifiable contained asbestos. I think the manner they public conduct themselves speaks volumes about how and where they generate wealth.
Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story
#26So either 1) the lawyers ripped off J&J by spending time on this or 2) J&J management was so angry and irrational that they demanded the lawyers waste their time on this. Every lawyer worth their salt in America knows that you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something. That’s a prior restraint and is about as close as you can get to something absolutely forbidden under American law.
Here is a recent successful injunction delaying publication: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/30/media/mary-trump-book/index.h...
Though it didn’t last long.
Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story
#27So either 1) the lawyers ripped off J&J by spending time on this or 2) J&J management was so angry and irrational that they demanded the lawyers waste their time on this. Every lawyer worth their salt in America knows that you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something. That’s a prior restraint and is about as close as you can get to something absolutely forbidden under American law.
the lawyers ripped off J&J by spending time on this
I wouldn't be surprised.
My mother worked for the VP a company that was involved in a lawsuit that went on for decades. It was commonly known in the company that the lawsuit was being deliberately dragged out for the benefit of the opposition's lawyers, and that the case was even handed down as a kind of sick inheritance from father-to-son as people retired.
I've only been involved in a court case once. I was picked as a juror in a case where two divorce lawyers were suing each other over how to split the fee from a high-profile divorce.
I'm sure there are good lawyers out there, but they seem as rare as hen's teeth and well-intentioned social media companies.
Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story
#28Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story
#29So either 1) the lawyers ripped off J&J by spending time on this or 2) J&J management was so angry and irrational that they demanded the lawyers waste their time on this. Every lawyer worth their salt in America knows that you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something. That’s a prior restraint and is about as close as you can get to something absolutely forbidden under American law.
"you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something."
You can't, in theory.
In practice this sort of thing happens all the time. I had a judge issue a clearly unconstitutional order limiting my speech (there was no action on my part leading up to this, it was a broad order applying to more than just me). My lawyer's take was that while it was clearly not allowed, it wasn't particularly important so best to just ignore it.
It's really, really common.
Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
talc-based products contained asbestos and caused mesothelioma and ovarian cancer
I don't think anybody demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the vended product was the cause of ovarian cancer in the plaintiffs.
It’s a civil suit. If Johnson and Johnson was so confident that there was no harm caused by their products, why go through all this trouble?