People don't like him not because of his "scam", but because he raised drug prices. Maybe people on HN and elsewhere think big pharma should be run as a charity, but in my book, making as much money as you can is a good thing, a noble and morally righteous thing in fact.
Companies should try and make as much money as humanly possible (without breaking the law), because this is the only framework in which competition can exist. Everyone, everywhere, should be as greedy as possible and try as make a big of return on their investments as possible. This is the origin of "competition."
If individuals and companies weren't doing that, our market wouldn't function and it wouldn't delivery nearly as value as it does to society.
I happily look forward to the downvotes.
> making as much money as you can is a good thing, a noble and morally righteous thing in fact.
I don't see how you can claim that what he did was morally righteous, but also possibly fraudulent.
> Companies should try and make as much money as humanly possible (without breaking the law)
The parenthetical here is hilarious, because it immediately contradicts your argument. Companies should try to make as much money as possible, until we decide that what they do should be illegal, in which case companies should not try to make as much money as possible. Isn't this always the case? Assuming we have a perfect system, companies should try to make as much money as possible within that system. Shkreli went to jail because he broke the law, therefore according to your own argument you shouldn't be admiring him.
Shrikeli did two things; (1) legally raise the prices of some drugs and (2) defraud his investors.
mruts is admiring (1) while condemning (2).
That would be weird, since Daraprim (the drug he hiked) was out of patent, anyone could make and sell it, and in fact a competitor did jut a couple of months later. How was Congress preventing competition?
Patents were a collateral issue. On that collateral issue, one of the issues with patents is that drug companies have a tendency to stop producing drugs towards the end of life of a patent to force patients onto a newly patented drug. This practice could be stopped by allowing generics to produce, market, and sell when the patent holder will not.
What seems to me is that the market was crowded out while the primary producer kept the prices low; when they were raised, the market responded.
The prosecutor picked the fight because they knew he was viewed as such an asshole that there was no way anyone would think any differently of him. It's the reason he's in jail for seven years despite making profits for those he defrauded (remember that sentencing in these cases is often dependent on damages) and Elizabeth Holmes isn't.
Good PR juju goes a long way: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mariappan-jawaharlal/tale-...
Painting yourself as the underdog before receiving any feedback undermines your communication. Even worse, the "your inevitable and surely unreasonable disagreement makes me happy" style of sign-off is just putting forth the image of being an asshole for basically no reason other than emotional self-defense.
Arguably, Shkreli's actions incentivized competition (like the parent poster talked about), and at the cost of only two months of unaffordable prices, patients were left much better off.
Personally I still find his action abhorrent, but the facts do have some weight.
You incitement of downvotes is clear enough indicator of your bad faith.
This part seems a little more relevant to this story than a parenthetical aside.
Not from me: your opinion stands out from the general HN hypocrisy, on top of being very consistent.
Well, Shkreli's company was providing the drug in question for free to those who could not afford it, so your rage seems a bit unsubstantiated.