Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 446 posts

Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison

#271

Post by viraptor »

aetherson wrote: post #240
otalp wrote: post #92

It does say something depressing about our laws that he got sent to prison for the thing where he lied to rich people while still making them money rather than the thing where he extorted sick poor people...which is still fully legal even if the majority of society thinks it shouldn't.

If you make it punishable by prison time to charge more than some unknowable fair amount of money to make drugs, then nobody will make drugs . If you make it not a crime to deceive investors and misuse their money, then rich people won't invest their money, they will keep it in vaults. I consider "a world in which people who don't want to risk prison are still able to make drugs" and "a world in which capital is inve…

> If you make it punishable by prison time to charge more than some unknowable fair amount of money to make drugs, then nobody will make drugs.

That's not true. First because price gouging laws already exist, so it's not entirely unknowable - especially if this rule became a law. Second, because once it's known, it's like any other existing limit. If you pay people lower than minimal legal wage, you're liable - that hasn't stopped everyone from hiring.

Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison

#272

Post by jlmorton »

harryh wrote: post #237
ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think philosophically it has to do with being the agent that causes harm. If I never existed to give charitable donations, those people in Africa are not in a worse situation because I am not here. My existence, and my possible charity can only improve this situation. If Martin never existed, those poor people would possibly be much better off, getting a more fair price for their medication instead of paying the th…

If Martin never existed, those poor people would possibly be much better off Well maybe . One of the reasons that drugs get invented is because people are willing to buy the rights to manufacture and distribute them. If Shkreli, and other people like him, didn't exist the drug might not be there in the first place. But you ARE obligated not to make it worse. I can think of lots of places that people make my life wors…

> If Shkreli, and other people like him, didn't exist the drug might not be there in the first place.

Right, and the law grants a limited term monopoly for novel pharmaceutical compounds to encourage innovation. In this case, the patent for Daraprim had long since expired.

What Martin Shkreli did was acquire the marketing and distribution rights for Daraprim, raise the price to $75,000/month, and then withdraw all pharmacy distribution, instead relying on a direct distribution model specifically to prevent other generic drug manufacturers from obtaining the drug for comparison purposes in FDA-required bioequivalence studies.

Is it legal? Sure. But he basically weaponized FDA regulations to reap a substantial profit.

Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison

#273

Post by dayaz36 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #269
dayaz36 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never suggested the judges decision was off the cuff, you just made that up. I simply stated that he is doing 7 years for a $10.4M hypothetical loss that never happened.

Are you saying that the investors money was not actually taken under false pretenses? Because the legal rule, based on precedent, applied was that the value fradulently taken (whether or not later returned ) is the “loss amount” for sentencing purposes.

Not disputing that. Just saying there were no ACTUAL losses.

Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison

#274

Post by cabaalis »

MaybiusStrip wrote: post #183
rayiner wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not it doesn’t. Our legal framework doesn’t oblige you to save someone’s life just because you have the means to do so. If it did, we’d all be in big trouble—for the cost of a fully loaded MacBook Pro, you could save someone from malaria in Africa. The fact that people think a particular unpopular thing shouldn’t be legal doesn’t change that. There are a lot of things people believe should be illegal that aren’t ille…

Regulating the price of medication isn't a slippery slope to outlawing MacBook pros. What a preposterous thing to say. The law is whatever society decides it should be. There is nothing inherently rational about it. You'd have to accept some pretty messed up things as rational if you actually believed that.

Just 2 nitpicks:

1) The law is what a very small group of people decides it should be, and

2) Slippery slopes in law are a very real thing. Just listen to Supreme Court oral arguments. That's (supposedly) why it takes so much forethought and time to enact them.

Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison

#275

Post by harryh »

jlmorton wrote: post #272
harryh wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Martin never existed, those poor people would possibly be much better off Well maybe . One of the reasons that drugs get invented is because people are willing to buy the rights to manufacture and distribute them. If Shkreli, and other people like him, didn't exist the drug might not be there in the first place. But you ARE obligated not to make it worse. I can think of lots of places that people make my life wors…

> If Shkreli, and other people like him, didn't exist the drug might not be there in the first place. Right, and the law grants a limited term monopoly for novel pharmaceutical compounds to encourage innovation. In this case, the patent for Daraprim had long since expired. What Martin Shkreli did was acquire the marketing and distribution rights for Daraprim, raise the price to $75,000/month, and then withdraw all ph…

It sounds to me like the FDA regulations for approving new drug manufacturers haven't been very carefully designed. Whatever ire we have should be focused on them for screwing up the regulatory environment in the first place.

Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison

#276

Post by justherefortart »

MaybiusStrip wrote: post #183
rayiner wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not it doesn’t. Our legal framework doesn’t oblige you to save someone’s life just because you have the means to do so. If it did, we’d all be in big trouble—for the cost of a fully loaded MacBook Pro, you could save someone from malaria in Africa. The fact that people think a particular unpopular thing shouldn’t be legal doesn’t change that. There are a lot of things people believe should be illegal that aren’t ille…

Regulating the price of medication isn't a slippery slope to outlawing MacBook pros. What a preposterous thing to say. The law is whatever society decides it should be. There is nothing inherently rational about it. You'd have to accept some pretty messed up things as rational if you actually believed that.

Lmfao, the law is whatever those that own the politicians say.

My favorite in my current industry is how codified insurance costs are built into the system. You can't charge below X, because that would undercut the big players. So you have price floors, for no reason other than regulatory capture and payoffs.

Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison

#277

Post by presidentender »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #175
birken wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like it or hate it, this is what the SEC does. You think Martha Stewart deserved jail time for making 50k in an insider trading scheme she didn't really care about? The SEC finds very public cases and then brings the hammer down in order to act a deterrent. Martin Shkreli broke the law, something he didn't have to do. It isn't like it was mob justice and some hugely biased jury convicted him of all the crimes he was…

The SEC, DOJ, et al also have limited amounts of resources. They just can't go after everyone.

The fact that they can't go after everyone doesn't mean that they should punish Shkreli extra hard for what amounts to being a jerk.

Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison

#278

Post by theobon »

harryh wrote: post #257
robrenaud wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sick person: please moderately profitable pharma company, help me. moderately profitable pharma company: Sure, for $50 Sick person: please insanely profitable pharma company post shrekli, help me. insanely profitable pharma company post shrekli: Sure, for $5000

Exactly. Same thing. Both voluntary business transactions subject to the same rules as any other voluntarily exchange. No one is obligated to sell any particular good or service for any particular price. I know a lot of people see this differently but I don't think they have an ethical leg to stand on. When it gets down to it they have no particular rule for fair pricing other than "that feels too high to me."

There are multiple cases where someone can be obligated to sell for a particular price. Eminent domain is the most obvious example but Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory Licensing [1] is more applicable. Patent laws creates a temporary monopoly. This monopoly needs to be regulated to prevent abuse. Avoiding extortionist pricing of patented medications seems like a reasonable area for regulation.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminat...

Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison

#279

Post by odammit »

dragonwriter wrote: post #263
odammit wrote: post #177

Is he getting a comfy white collar prison sentence? Also, not to be that guy, but I hope he gets beat daily by other inmates. Edit: jk, totally being that guy.

> Also, not to be that guy, You know, if you feel the need to write this, it's a good sign that you should not write whatever it would come with. Because it's guaranteed that if you do, you will, in fact, be that guy.

Corrected.

Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison

#280

Post by cypherpunks01 »

maskedinvader wrote: post #144
dayaz36 wrote: post #122

This is insane. Sentencing guidelines for his crime was 0-12 months. He didn't even lose his investors any money.

not according to the Judge who cited Federal Law to determine he did incur 10.4 million in losses for the investors [1], it's complicated even though he did pay the investors back after they became suspicious. My understanding is this, say you leave your ferrari at the valet and the valet driver took it on a joy ride and returns it undamaged, you didn't lose anything, but the valet driver did break the law. 1. https:…

What law is the valet breaking in that case?
Post reply on HN