4 ms·
The landmark is how little they paid. IMO, the fine is appropriate because J&J was an inappropriate scapegoat in the first place — the damage they did is nothi
by dondawest 7y ago
The landmark is how little they paid.
IMO, the fine is appropriate because J&J was an inappropriate scapegoat in the first place — the damage they did is nothing compared to Purdue, for example.
- favorited 7y agoPurdue and Teva were part of the same suit, and they both settled. J&J isn't being scapegoated, they just decided to roll the dice and take it to trial.
- jfk13 7y agoIf it's true that "the damage they did is nothing compared to Purdue, for example", then doesn't this suggest that Purdue was given an outrageously lenient settlement? Why aren't we all up in arms protesting that?