Ken Harvey quoted: > "It is understood the three are willing to agree on the injunction > being made permanent in exchange for Schwabe dropping the case. The > company had objected to the process by which the report was drawn up, > as well as to its assumptions and conclusions." Ken probably cannot answer, but I am interested in the legal basis for suppressing the report. I am quite content with the company objecting to the "process by which the report was drawn up, as well as its assumptions and conclusions" but fail to see that that of its own is sufficient to suppress publication. Did the court find that the report was wrong, that is, it lacked a scientific basis? I presume not since it delivered an interim injunction. Nevertheless, it would be a sad day if we cannot debate scientific topics for fear of it being harmful to business interests.
David _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
