Eli Lilly is being sued over its drug "Zyprexa." Some of the documents related to the litigation were leaked to the press. The documents were used by newspapers and other news organizations to
report on the litigation, and analyze the claims made by the plaintiff. For a period of time, a wiki detailing the Zyprexa litigation linked to the New York Times article and other sites with the leaked documents.
Lilly secured a temporary restraining order against the New York Times and other organizations who were making the leaked documents available. While the temporary restraining order did not mention the wiki, attorneys for Lilly sent an e-mail to the host of the wiki demanding that the entire Zyprexa wiki be disabled for violation of the order, and for copyright infringement. Lilly secured an additional order naming the wiki specifically. Upon approval of that order, the wiki was subsequently edited to remove links to the leaked documents.
One of the contributors to the wiki has asked the court to restore the wiki links on the grounds that the wiki is a news organization, and can not be prohibited from disseminating news even if the news itself was procured illegally. The John Doe contributor is represented by the EFF
This litigation is important to web hosts since they seem to receive an unending stream of "nasty grams" from individuals and entities who feel that the web host's customers are behaving in an illegal or unethical manner. Hosts often hear from their customers that the alleged activity is in some way protected. While this litigation does not yet involve the host of the wiki, its resolution is likely to provide additional ammunition for either the nasty gram authors or their targets.
We have a very clear policy regarding copyright infringement. If we're informed that a site we host is infringing on someone else's copyright, we contact that site's administrator who has to respond with notification that are allowed to use the material or it will be removed.
The 'news organization' angle for the wiki is an interesting take. I'm very curious to see what happens in that regard. How responsible does the host have to be in regards to what is hosted on its servers?
"[p]rotective orders may have a legitimate role when there is
no public impact
or when true trade secrets are involved.
But we can strike a fairer balance
between privacy interests of corporations
and the health and safety of the public.
A publicly maintained legal system
ought not protect those who engage in misconduct,
conceal the cause of injury from the victims,
or render potential victims vulnerable.
Moreover, such secrecy
defeats the deterrent function of the justice system."
Judge Weinstein
I am a patient not a lawyer,I can't be disbared whatcha gonna do bout it?
Cheers,Daniel Haszard
Reporters covering this have been able to download the documents within MINUTES. The only debate is what metaphor is best to cover these documents: toothpaste out of the tube? cat out of the bag? genie out of the bottle?
However you look at it, the fact is that millions of people are taking these drugs, including many under court order forcibly. Don't these patients, their families, the courts, their attorneys, the public... don't we all have a right to see the evidence of unbelievable fraud exposed in these files?
Thank you to Electronic Frontier Foundation for being a voice of freedom in cyberspace, and coming to our social change movement's aid!
David Oaks, Director, MindFreedom International