Ask HN: why is Johnson & Johnson listed as supporting SOPA?
2 comments
I believe it's because they (and many others on the second lists) emailed Congress supporting some sort of copyright protection laws, but didn't name SOPA directly, and then Congress (or some other shady org) had the cojones to put their names onto the support list. A similar thing happened with Gibson Guitars, story here: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111222/16384317175/gibson...
Right, but they're not on the support list any more. Perhaps this is my cue to remove them from the crowdsourced supporters list?
I used to be more of a supporter of J&J (since I have to buy something in a market segment that they cover). But, they seem to have been up to more and more questionable/bad shit, lately. (E.g. one of their subsidiaries' illegal marketing of anti-psychotics for suspect off-label treatment of children -- apparently pushing any and all uses that would boost market share, regardless of efficacy/suitability.)
I don't know the specifics of SOPA support and J&J, but if it's not simply a "mistake" as darth_static postulates, it may be a matter of seeking to control physical counterfeiting. J&J has its hands in many things, these days; in fact, drugs may enter this topic, as well -- a focus of much counterfeiting effort. I believe many if not all of the pharmaceutical companies have been reported to be supporters of SOPA.
I don't know the specifics of SOPA support and J&J, but if it's not simply a "mistake" as darth_static postulates, it may be a matter of seeking to control physical counterfeiting. J&J has its hands in many things, these days; in fact, drugs may enter this topic, as well -- a focus of much counterfeiting effort. I believe many if not all of the pharmaceutical companies have been reported to be supporters of SOPA.
To my suprise, they're denying any explicit support for the legislation:
http://cloud.github.com/downloads/duncan-bayne/duncan-bayne.github.com/Email%20Response.pdf
... and they don't appear on the official list of supporters here:
http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_RogueWebsites.html
However, they do appear on this list:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmGJz_37ojoqdFZhYlBhN2hQOGRoN2R0ZGh3VDZlblE&pli=1#gid=0
... and many others like it.
Could someone familiar with this issue please explain the apparent discrepancy?