Nobody else seems to have noted that this is an interim injunction, not a permanent ban. It seems like legal enforcement of responsible disclosure to me, giving

Nobody else seems to have noted that this is an interim injunction, not a permanent ban. It seems like legal enforcement of responsible disclosure to me, giving manufacturers an opportunity to fix the problem. I don't see a problem with this per se, in cases where there would be severe harm (like significant crime) without such a ban, provided that the ban is time limited to the minimum time required to fix the problem in the wild. This means, IMHO, that the injunction should come with a requirement that the manufacturer fix vulnerable systems quickly, even if that costs them quite a bit. If this is done, then I don't see this as a bad thing. "The manufacturer's security is so bad that they had to get a court order to stop people from explaining how while they fixed it" is a pretty good incentive, I think.