171–180 of 239 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's also not uncommon to purchase an existing company, move debt over to it, and then kill it off. Late stage capitalism is an interesting phenomenon.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchfor...
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.
> Every lawyer worth their salt in America knows that you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something. You can if you are the government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_order#United_States
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. A lot of contracts people sign (NDAs and federal security clearance paperwork being the two examples that spring to mind) include clauses allowing a judge to issue a prior rest…
Civil law is a bit different. Nobody ever goes to jail for violating an NDA. What you can have happen is be found to be in breach of contract and obligated to follow the consequences of that breach (including possibly restitution for damaging the aggrieved party). The bar in civil law is lower because the penalties are generally money, and correction is simple if an error is later found (move that money back). Crimin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, ex parte family law orders should be available for extreme situations, but they are widely abused, only need to meet a legal standard of preponderance of evidence, do not require underlying criminal conduct, and can deprive a person of constitutional rights for months or more. They were technically temporary orders pending a full hearing, but those hearings can be delayed for a variety of reasons. In one order b…
In my case, it was not issued ex-parte. In fact, it was not even requested relief. My impression is that these sorts of prior restraints are so normalized that they're applied as a matter of course.
The baby powder story is a great opportunity to remember that there are actual journalists doing valuable work, and society needs them. Meanwhile, the oft-repeated sentiment is that we should get rid of journalists and news agencies because every single one of them is supposedly a sell-out. That’d surely resolve a number of issues for companies like J&J.
But the government is happy to shield them from liability when it comes to vaccines.
It makes sense in a pandemic to have a fast rollout with continuous monitoring instead of the usual wait for the courts, usually wait for enough cases to have a class action, wait for the certification of that, etc.
Not to mention the anti vax nutjobs screaming about experimential vaccines being experimential. (Which is meaningless, because even if it is it might be a lot more safe than something that's old, boring but did not get this much scrutiny.)
Oh and baby bottom redness is not infectious and as far as we know did not kill anyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because this isn’t a formal debate, and generally we trust in others’ firsthand experiences, especially when they link to a related article, even if it isn’t precisely the story that happened to them. The GP is, in this case, an original source and as per the HN guidelines [1] we assume good faith. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The sentence you conveniently left out leaves out the context of "assume good faith": > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. That does not, in any way, say "assume anecdotes are trustworthy." Nowhere in the rules does it say or even imply this. It is also laughable to suggest the HN community assumes good faith;…
2) That there are HN commenters who don’t follow the guidelines doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
3) I did not “conveniently” leave out that sentence, which implies malice on my part. I left it out because I deemed it irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. The strongest plausible interpretation of the GP’s comment is that they are telling the truth but can’t or are uncomfortable sharing details due to legal or personal matters, especially given that it was posted with a throwaway account, which the guidelines also specify is OK for sensitive information, implying that the GP was posting… sensitive information. As before: please try to assume good faith.
It's interesting how effectively the J&J PR department keeps steering these lawsuits back to talc that is contaminated with asbestos, even though they're well aware that uncontaminated talc also causes cancer. A while back, I read that J&J has access to special uncontaminated talc mines.
Can you please point to the claim, data, evidence for this? :o
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Every lawyer worth their salt in America knows that you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something. You can if you are the government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_order#United_States
Is J&J the government?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
J&J has a history of giving common people cancer for profit, and you think it's somehow the common people's fault for not trusting J&J? That is some pretty sick victim blaming there.
Can you really blame the people that are spoon fed fearporn from the media everyday and in a constant state of stockholm syndrome, while also being led to believe we live in a two-party state (right vs left), from picking a side? They are victims too but just don't know it yet.