Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 239 posts

Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story

#61

Post by brendoelfrendo »

bitcharmer wrote: post #49
fulafel wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reuters is a UK company and freedom of press is quite limited there. But a US federal judge of course would be the wrong party to turn to for leveraging this.

> freedom of press is quite limited there Could you please be more specific? Because I've lived here for a long time and I'd call this statement utter BS.

They’re probably talking about the UK’s weirdly strong defamation laws. From what I understand, burden of proof for libel in English law is on the defendant, not the plaintiff. Once the claim of defamation is made, it’s on the defense to justify what they said.

This makes the UK court system a popular venue for rich people to try and suppress negative press.

Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story

#62

Post by tyrfing »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #33

Pharma companies get away with way too much. No other industry could you sell products that only slightly work as advertised for some people, some of the time. But charge everyone same, with no refunds when the product doesn't work. And you can't even sue if it causes you harm. The new development to use the power of the courts and government to mandate their use should give you pause. The absolute risk reduction (AR…

Only a certain percent of people enjoy themselves on rollercoasters. Therefore, charging everyone for entry is a scam.

> And you can't even sue if it causes you harm.

There are 38,200 pending lawsuits against J&J solely for talc powder claims. A single one of them was $2.5 billion.

Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story

#64

Post by tylersmith »

Arjuna wrote: post #47

This sounds like a similar strategy taken straight out of the Hollywood Accounting [1] playbook: “On Friday, Reuters reported that J&J secretly launched ‘Project Plato’ last year to shift liability from about 38,000 pending Baby Powder talc lawsuits to a newly created subsidiary, which was then to be put into bankruptcy. By doing so, J&J could limit its financial exposure to the lawsuits.” [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.…

It's a much more interesting trick imo, where Texas allows "divisive mergers" that enable them to split liabilities off into a separate entity. It's not clear to me what the intended benefit of allowing this procedure is, other than this kind of action.

Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story

#65

Post by denysvitali »

ripdog wrote: post #41
samwillis wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s strange, it’s crashing Safari on iOS: Mirror here: https://archive.ph/vfOkX

How on earth is this page killing all 3 mobile rendering engines?! I literally can't view the page on my phone.

Same here. Wtf. Are they mining bitcoins when you open the page?

Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story

#66

Post by [deleted] »

grapescheesee wrote: post #25

I 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…

[deleted]

Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story

#67

Post by xeromal »

throwaway09223 wrote: post #51
daenz wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you feel comfortable elaborating, can you explain broadly the purpose for the judge's order? I have heard stories of judges doing things like that during the time period of a divorce or custody battle.

I'm not going to elaborate other than to say my speech was restrained due to someone else's actions, but family court is definitely an area where common practice has strayed very, very far from anything resembling constitutionality. One such example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

You can't bring up an anecdote as a counterpoint then refuse to explain the anecdote. It's a bit unfair.

Edit: someone posted the rules that says we should accept people's comments in good faith. I'll try to do that. Leaving this comment for posterity.

Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story

#68

Post by alistairSH »

Arjuna wrote: post #47

This sounds like a similar strategy taken straight out of the Hollywood Accounting [1] playbook: “On Friday, Reuters reported that J&J secretly launched ‘Project Plato’ last year to shift liability from about 38,000 pending Baby Powder talc lawsuits to a newly created subsidiary, which was then to be put into bankruptcy. By doing so, J&J could limit its financial exposure to the lawsuits.” [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.…

At least with Hollywood accounting, the subsidiary is usually created up front. This reads like J&J created the subsidiary after the fact, which IMO, shouldn’t be allowed.

Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story

#69

Post by theknocker »

legalcorrection wrote: post #19

So 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.

No post body was provided.

Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story

#70

Post by Mountain_Skies »

mpyne wrote: post #40
adamrezich wrote: post #34

can 2022 be the year we go back to being distrustful of multinational for-profit pharmaceutical corporations please

Indeed, you can never tell what those companies put in their Ivermectin and HCQ tablets these days.

Very little profit, that's for sure.
Post reply on HN