HN Gopher Feed (2017-08-04) - page 1 of 10 ___________________________________________________________________
Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud
451 points by fmihaila
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/08/04/marti.../04/martin-shkreli-jury-enters-fifth-day-of-deliberations/___________________________________________________________________
nodesocket - 2 hours ago
Unfortunately Martin was made a scapegoat and they made an example
out of him because of his arrogance and vocal personality. How did
the executives that caused the financial crisis of 2008 get off
completely free but a relatively tiny hedge fund manager get the
book thrown at him? This was a witch hunt, no doubt about it.
whipoodle - 2 hours ago
I agree, but only in the sense that more of them should be in
jail.
michrassena - 3 hours ago
I've found him to be an interesting character, a potent symbol of
the greed, arrogance, and indifference of the pharmaceutical
industry. A PR firm couldn't have invented a better villain,
young, brash, flouting decorum by his openly fleecing the public.
He was the perfect scapegoat.I think we all know nothing has
changed, and his conviction today has no relationship to his role
as CEO, but I wonder if public opinion of the industry will
improve, as if the bad apple is rooted out.
forkLding - 3 hours ago
For those who haven't read the article, Martin is being charged on
cheating his investors, he himself admits to his "broomsticks", not
the immoral arguments he was previously known for.Also that aside,
he was quite a easy target.
blizkreeg - 1 hours ago
I have no sympathy for him as he appears to have lied to his
investors and moved money around, which seems to be outside the
law.Raising the price of a drug though, as long as he can get away
with it, is no crime, no matter how big the increase.This makes me
question though, did he raise the price of Daraprim so he could
return money to the investors of his hedge fund?? If so, his entire
defense (from his videos) of raising the price to meet his
fiduciary duties to Turing's investors falls flat.
[deleted]
balls187 - 2 hours ago
> Prosecutors argued that Shkreli lied to investors in two hedge
funds ... according to prosecutors.If you were to scrutinize what
founders of darling startups said to investors, how many
"inconsistencies" would you find?
MistahKoala - 3 hours ago
I get the impression he isn't so much malevolent in his actions,
rather he behaves as a libertine and someone who takes the view
that the end justify the means.
emodendroket - 3 hours ago
OK, so he's just indifferent to the harm caused by his actions,
rather than a cackling sadist. So what?
eurticket - 1 hours ago
hand over the wutang
calafrax - 2 hours ago
Great. They convicted one low level autistic freak with no
connections over a couple million dollars. Brave day for
justice.What about the daughter of a senator who is the CEO of the
company that quadrupled the price of epipens? Yeah, right, mission
accomplished, nothing to see there.
ptr_void - 2 hours ago
He is live-streaming right now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvArpDQHf-Y
fmihaila - 2 hours ago
Watching it right now and it's fascinating. He has just been
explaining to a Daily News reporter why his company charges what
it charges for the various drugs it sells. More people should
watch this before they make up their mind.It's only a live stream
now, I hope it's going to stay on YT after it's done. (They're
now arguing about what he considers distorted coverage of him in
the press.)
discombobulate - 3 hours ago
I quite like Martin. I talked to him a few time on YouTube, whilst
he was live streaming.He's whip-smart & knowledgeable. He does,
however, have a couple of major flaws. 1) He trolls. Hard. 2) It
seems he lies. Which I picked up from a previous news article. (He
claimed to have ~$50mm under management @ his previous hedge fund.
It was more like $1.6mm. Something like that).I can forgive the
trolling. It's over the top, IMO. But it is what it is.The lying is
another kettle of fish. You can't go around bullshitting ppl. &, as
he found out, you can't go around bullshitting investors.I think he
loves money too much. The thought of being poor may have pushed him
to do something stupid (ultimately his call!).I hope he doesn't
have too hard a time in jail. Losing his fortune (I believe he
loses his shares from Retrophin. ~$65mm. That's already a
punishment.Edit: I don't know why I'm being downvoted. I'm being
honest. Fuck you people, frankly.
KingPrad - 2 hours ago
I went to high school with a fellow like Shkreli and with same
story: rising fortunes, financial lying, fraud, conviction.Same
traits as above, though unlike Shkreli this guy was extremely
personable and likable.He was just a congenital liar and driven
by something inside to... do more, do something bigger. He had
the most incredible stories in high school that largely turned
out to be lies, but at the time it all hung together with enough
reality you couldn't see through it.It's interesting knowing
someone like my acquaintance and seeing the same story in other
people of playing fast with lies trying to make it really big,
when they actually have the skills to do it more honestly.
discombobulate - 2 hours ago
> when they actually have the skills to do it more
honestly.That crossed my mind. That's why I think accepting
failer is an inherant factor in business. Risk/reward. May win.
Could lose.
[deleted]
burkaman - 3 hours ago
Trolling is lying. Either you believe terrible things, or you lie
about believing them to make people angry. Normal lying is
usually intended for personal gain, trolling is just lies
intended to hurt other people.
[deleted]
MSM - 3 hours ago
>Trolling is lyingNot at all, I think one of the most famous
"troll" things he did was buy the master Wu-Tang album and
threaten to destroy it so no one could ever hear the
album.There's no lying or anything meant to "hurt" anyone
there, but you can imagine that it rubbed a lot of people the
wrong way.
burkaman - 1 hours ago
Threatening to destroy it so nobody else can hear it is
explicitly intended to hurt people who want to hear the
album. If you don't mean to hurt anyone, by definition it
isn't trolling.Maybe I'm stretching the meaning of lying, but
I think it's dishonest to represent yourself as a patron of
the arts, as the album was produced as a piece of art, when
you're really bidding on it with the sole purpose of
depriving others. If that's not the reason he bought it, then
he wasn't trolling.
hxegon - 25 minutes ago
except, no one was actually hurt. He didn't destroy the
album (as far as I know). You could make an argument that
it's a dick move, and I might agree, but it's his property
to do with as he wishes.
[deleted]
Sangermaine - 3 hours ago
"It's not always about lying! Sometimes it's about being
cruel to strangers just to enjoy their suffering!"
brandonhsiao - 2 hours ago
How is that "being cruel to strangers just to enjoy their
suffering"?Also, you've commented in this thread about six
times now with snarky remarks, unsubstantiated vitriol, and
essentially "Martin Shkreli is a monster." Whether or not
there's good reason to dislike him, I think you've
successfully made your point.
rhcom2 - 1 hours ago
>I think one of the most famous "troll" things he did was
buy the master Wu-Tang album and threaten to destroy it
so no one could ever hear the album.How is that not
exactly "being cruel to strangers just to enjoy their
suffering"?
[deleted]
discombobulate - 3 hours ago
Maybe that's true. I unfollowed him on Twitter b/c of the
trolling.
[deleted]
Sangermaine - 3 hours ago
>He's whip-smart & knowledgeable.People keep saying this as if it
matters. What did you expect, that he'd be a drooling idiot? So
he's smart and personable. Of course he is, most con men are.
discombobulate - 3 hours ago
I wouldn't describe him as personable.Being smart is a trait I
admire. I learned from him. Especially from his mistakes.
frgtpsswrdlame - 2 hours ago
There's this weird feeling that somehow, even though he's
gouging everyone who pays for insurance at best and just the
sick at worst and after being found guilty of fraud we should
still like him and because why? Because he's familiar with
internet culture in the same way we are? Afterall, he may be a
fraudster and a gouger but he's not so bad because he's also a
troller! He may be a conman but he's our conman (and
intelligent!)
discombobulate - 2 hours ago
Gouging is a debatable economic concept.
frgtpsswrdlame - 2 hours ago
How so?EDIT: Also, is that the only flaw you found with my
comment? If so, lol.
discombobulate - 2 hours ago
Here's something on Wikipedia. I've not read it, yet. Not
having a basis in economics is a reasonable argument, imo
.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_gouging#Opposition_t
o_la...Edit: I'm trying to listen to a live Shkreli
interview & replaying @ the same time. Sorry if I didn't
rebut it as fully as I would normally.
[deleted]
frgtpsswrdlame - 2 hours ago
You didn't really rebut at all, you just googled it and
pasted a link here...I think here even Sowell would agree
that it exists. Basically price gouging can't exist if we
use a simplified view of a perfectly competitive market.
If we move over to a market with only one seller then we
could probably define price gouging as when the monopoly
firm charges a price higher (or much higher) than what we
would see in a competitive equilibrium. AKA exactly what
Shkreli did.
discombobulate - 1 hours ago
You lol. I took that as incredulity.Is there such thing
as a perfectly competitive market irl?There's a canonical
example used by the Mises Institute -- water after a
hurricane. I watch a lecture half a decade ago. I don't
have perfect information. Far from it. It was convincing.
A stripped down model which made gouging look ridiculous.
I think it's debatable.
frgtpsswrdlame - 1 hours ago
>Is there such thing as a perfectly competitive market
irl?Wikipedia has the requirements for a perfectly
competitive market, if you look at them you'll see that
there certainly can't be many markets like that. I'd say
the closest thing you're liable to run into on a day to
day basis is gasoline. There's a lot of stations, you
probably drive past a few everyday so you've got good
price information, you know what the product will be and
it's all the same.>There's a canonical example used by
the Mises Institute -- water after a hurricane. I watch a
lecture half a decade ago. I don't have perfect
information. Far from it. It was convincing. A stripped
down model which made gouging look ridiculous. I think
it's debatable.One thing I find with libertarians (Mises
tipped me off) is that they're often not too familiar
with good critiques, only the surface level stuff that
gets thrown around on twitter or tumblr. So here's my con
tribution:http://critiques.us/index.php?title=Matt_Brueni
gMaybe read some critiques, the worst it can do is make
you a better libertarian.
discombobulate - 1 hours ago
Hadn't realised about the gas market.Mises is a big clue.
I like to hear both sides. I've got some Marx to learn
before anything else (econ). Maybe with a focus on the
Frankfurt School.
binarymax - 3 hours ago
Oh so his only two flaws are trolling and he lies. But he's OK
sure. How about the fact that he caused the suffering of
patients needing the drug that he was raised prices on?
komali2 - 3 hours ago
As has been stated previously, the drug was available free to
those who needed it.
artursapek - 1 hours ago
You need to start questioning what you see on TV & the
Huffington Post.
discombobulate - 3 hours ago
I believe he corrected the price of a drug. & no one went
without. Those unable to pay for insurance got the drug for
free.Also, I said two major flaws. Obviously, ppl have many
flaws.Edit: It's economic illiteracy if you don't understand
that. If you have evidence which says otherwise(?), I'm happy
to look at it.
singhrac - 2 hours ago
One thing to consider is: why is he the one who decides who
can afford the drug or gets a free version? Seems horrible to
me - we have laws to protect equal access to services like
this (Medicare, Medicaid).Another argument of his I found
extremely disgusting is that he claims he's reinvesting
profits from the price raise to further drug research. Ok,
but again, we only have his word for that (and he's been
convicted of fraud(!)). You can only claim you're smarter
than the system and more responsible so much before people
realize what's going on.
discombobulate - 2 hours ago
It's insurance that pays, I believe . So it's a function of
price. He changed the price based on market condition.Agree
on the second point. Personally, I don't think that's
relavent.
frgtpsswrdlame - 2 hours ago
And who pays insurance?
discombobulate - 2 hours ago
Pricing something correctly isn't immoral
frgtpsswrdlame - 2 hours ago
Sure maybe you can explain what you mean by the phrase:
"pricing something correctly"
discombobulate - 2 hours ago
What someone will pay & what someone will sell @. Normal
basic econ.Edit: (I can't seem to reply) I think non-gov
monopolies are ok. You'd make a ton of money in your
example, & then be able to create more drugs. Generally,
I think it's good for talented people to get resources.
Superior resource allocation.
frgtpsswrdlame - 2 hours ago
This isn't normal basic econ. This is a monopoly
market.Let's say I create a cure for a truly horrible
disease like Huntington's. Let's say it cost me
absolutely zero dollars of R&D, I just happened upon it
in some weird stroke of happenstance and the FDA does a
rush approval and gives me a grant for even those costs,
basically fantasyworld but $0 expenditure by me so
everything I make is pure profit. And let's say I bring
this drug to market and I give it a very controversial
price. Which is that I will cure you of Huntington's if
and only if you pay me 1 million dollars or all of your
worldly possessions, whichever is higher. Do you believe
I should be able to do this?
damnfinecoffee - 1 hours ago
There's nothing talented at all about buying rights to a
drug and then raising the price of it. Monopolies hurt
consumers, why would you think that's okay? Especially in
a field like pharmaceuticals where peoples lives are
literally on the line?
robryan - 1 hours ago
At the price which will maximize total profits.
cloakandswagger - 2 hours ago
Because it's his drug. He bought it. It's his property.
[deleted]
[deleted]
chippy - 3 hours ago
> Fuck you people, frankly.27 minutes agoYou might find that
waiting a few more minutes might make readers more sympathetic to
your thoughts. Often I suspect some users may downvote because
they see both the impatience and the swearing at "you people"
which they see as being every user except you.Just a helpful
hint. By the way, at 29 minutes, your comment was in the black
and was not downvoted and was at #3. Welcome to Hacker News. I
hope you enjoy your time on this technology site.
discombobulate - 2 hours ago
I've been around HN for a while. It went from 2 points to 0 to
1. I had already written the edit. I decided to keep it.I
probably shouldn't have. I thought it would help. I guess it
shows I'm human. I don't want to come across as a psychopath. I
have a tendency to stick to ideas others feel are wrong (vs
actually being wrong). Actually, HN is quite good on that
front. Accepting logic.Edit: Could have lied here. Just took
the downvotes.Edit2: Which is what I just learned. Better to be
disliked & be truthful. In most cases. (Would lie to someone
trying to murder me, for example. Despite what Kant says).
always_good - 2 hours ago
> It went from 2 points to 0 to 1. So you were
complaining about 2 downvotes?
discombobulate - 2 hours ago
I wanted to eat dinner (it's late in the UK) & took the
time to type out the comment. Yes.Edit: I've also already
said I would wait in future. Not sure what else you'd like.
aphextron - 2 hours ago
>I quite like Martin. I talked to him a few time on YouTube,
whilst he was live streaming.He's a sociopath, of course you
liked him. That's what those kind of people do. Build confidence
and exploit people.
surrey-fringe - 2 hours ago
Nice armchair psychology. Do you have more?
sliverstorm - 2 hours ago
I'm not sure a well-known phenomenon (talented sociopaths can
make excellent manipulators & get everyone to love them
within five minutes of meeting) counts as armchair
psychology.
l33tbro - 57 minutes ago
I think the point is that 'sociopath' has become used as a
tired catch-all for anyone displaying a few traits of the
disorder, as in this case.
elliotec - 3 hours ago
I agree with you, but I might suggest editing out the last
sentence of your edit because that's like, rude.
discombobulate - 2 hours ago
I'll keep it. I'm going to try & not do it it again. At the
very least wait before saying anything!
[deleted]
thrillgore - 3 hours ago
Okay real talk -- who's gonna get that Wu-Tang album he has?
fmihaila - 3 hours ago
For those who can access it, this NYT article has more detail: http
s://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/04/business/dealbook/martin-...(Edit: I
posted this comment while the WaPo article had only a few
paragraphs; it's now fully fledged.)
[deleted]
jedberg - 3 hours ago
I understand that what he did was morally abhorrent, but I don't
understand why it was illegal? Maybe a lawyer can give a quick
summaray?
MichaelGG - 3 hours ago
What was morally abhorrent? Raising prices to insurers to perhaps
fund other stuff, while giving away medicines to people that had
no way of obtaining it (no insurance)?If anything he should be
lauded for proving how broken the medical system is (why could he
so easily buy a monopoly on this product?), while not killing
anyone.
watty - 3 hours ago
Did you read the article?> Prosecutors argued that Shkreli lied
to investors in two hedge funds and the pharmaceutical company
Retrophin, all of which he founded. Shkreli told investors he
graduated from Columbia University, that his hedge fund was large
and profitable, and that he had hired an auditor, they said.
These were all lies, according to prosecutors.
jedberg - 37 minutes ago
The article didn't have any of that when I read it.
setra - 3 hours ago
The article seems to have been extended from a couple
paragraphs to a long piece. The url stayed identical.
[deleted]
EnFinlay - 3 hours ago
He's not charged with anything related to the drug price
increases.
mattbierner - 3 hours ago
This trial was not about him raising drug prices but rather about
how he deceived investors. He lied to them and used illegal
business practices to cover things up
sehugg - 3 hours ago
"He lost everything in MSMB Capital after a bad trade in February
2011, and hid that fact, sending investors statements for more
than a year and a half showing strong returns ? even though the
fund didn?t trade after that month, and had no assets."
am1988 - 3 hours ago
The reasons he is hated aren't the same as the reasons he is on
trial.
Clubber - 3 hours ago
I use to hate this guy, then I saw the Vice interview on him. It
was nice to see his side of the story.I don't know much about this
case in particular. It was kinda sleazy to see the congress
question him about his price increases when they knew damn well it
was perfectly legal and they haven't done anything to stop it.
Shkreli seems to be trying to expose this hypocrisy, but the news
loves their stories.Vice interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PCb9mnrU1g
wfunction - 2 hours ago
> It was kinda sleazy to see the congress question him about his
price increases when they knew damn well it was perfectly legal
and they haven't done anything to stop it.Do you have any
suggestions on how what exactly they should've done? Passed a law
that says "you cannot increase the price of a drug beyond 5x" or
something?
Clubber - 2 hours ago
Just to throw something out there to start, I would limit price
hikes over time, say 10% a year. I'm open to any alternatives.
wfunction - 12 minutes ago
Without even any mention of what the manufacturer can do to
cover cost increases? You really think it can be so simple?
QAPereo - 2 hours ago
Sociopaths, in limited circumstances, can sometimes be very
charming.
Sangermaine - 3 hours ago
He tried to expose "hypocrisy" by committing fraud and pricing
vital medication out of many people who need it's ability to pay?
All the while acting like a complete asshole and working hard to
disrupt his own trial?How will society ever survive without this
white knight's protection?
[deleted]
davesque - 2 hours ago
Thanks for sharing that. I've never really gotten on board the
Shkreli hate wagon. I've just regarded him with a mixture of
skepticism and curiosity. People love banding together and
agreeing collectively about what they like and dislike. It tends
to make me uneasy to get involved with that so I've tried to stay
neutral in my views on him.
aseipp - 4 minutes ago
> Shkreli seems to be trying to expose this hypocrisy, but the
news loves their stories.Ahhh, my favorite pastime, exposing
hypocrisy. To do this, you have to play 47 dimensional chess. My
recommended strategy for this is to defraud investors and then
get rich off price-jacking pharmaceuticals. It's a proven
strategy!(Proven to get you convicted.)
slantedview - 3 hours ago
Still a horrible person for so many reasons (including this one
[1] the other day).[1]
https://twitter.com/laurenduca/status/890960104262180865
cloakandswagger - 11 minutes ago
Pretty funny if you ask me. They've had a long running and
playful "feud" for a while now.
sAvi0r - 2 hours ago
The only horrible person in that tweet is the rat messaging her
that crap so he can write some clickbait garbage for whatever
trash site he works for, tbh. Let's be real - we all say stupid
shit while drunk.
TYE7JIKED5JK - 2 hours ago
Repeated, direct verbal harassment, and inciting a mob of
sycophants to follow suit is patently disgusting. He may be
technically competent, but he completely lacks social
intelligence.Surely he's made his money at this point - the
only thing driving his behavior is narcissism.
mikeash - 3 hours ago
What's wrong with Congress questioning someone about legal but
shady activity? If he broke the law, he'd just be prosecuted. No
reason for Congress to have anything to do with it. But if what
he did was legal but wrong, then maybe the law should be changed,
and that's exactly what Congress is for.
spinlock - 2 hours ago
Because Congress didn't need to find out any facts. They just
wanted to put on a show to sway public opinion.Remember when
they questioned Toyota over unintended acceleration? That made
Toyota apologize and generally made the public believe that
Toyota was at fault.Now, consider that at the time Congress
questioned Toyota they were the largest shareholder in Toyota's
biggest competitor (GM) and, when NASA examined the evidence,
they found no issues in Toyota's products.If you want to talk
about securities fraud, that Congressional hearing should be at
the top of the list.
MBCook - 3 hours ago
This is hardly the first time this happened, they could have
easily made a law years ago.Have they introduced the Shkreli
Can't Endanger those Represented by Welfare Act have they?This
was a PR stunt.
Clubber - 3 hours ago
Yes, it absolutely was a PR stunt. I mentioned earlier that
congress gets paid a lot of money to not regulate
pharmaceuticals, this was them trying to save face so the
fleecing can continue. Just an example of absolute corruption
of our federal government.
cowmoo728 - 3 hours ago
It doesn't inspire confidence that they questioned Shkreli, who
was a relatively small player in the medical space, while a
senator's daughter was in the middle of one of the most
egregious price gouging schemes in recent memory. They even
wrote legislation to make it mandatory to carry their product
in schools and public buildings.The Shkreli inquiry reeked of
hypocrisy and grandstanding. Those congressmen knew perfectly
well what was going on, and many of them receive contributions
from companies involved in it.
artursapek - 1 hours ago
Not to mention that their "questioning" was not even
questioning, but instead exactly what you say -
grandstanding. They basically unloaded uninformed rants on
him while he was forced to sit there.
sol_remmy - 2 hours ago
> while a senator's daughter was in the middle of one of the
most egregious price gouging schemes in recent memory.For
anyone curious, CEO of Epipen manufacturer Mylar is Heather
Bresch . She is the daughter of senator Joe Manchin, who has
introduced bills in the Senate to change FDA regulations to
favor his daughter's company.
mgbmtl - 2 hours ago
As a Canadian, I'm just curious: what are the current proposals
to regulate pharmaceutical sales in the US?In most Canadian
provinces, the provincial government is the only authorized
purchaser for prescribed medication. It is then sold to
pharmacies and hospitals, who are in charge of distribution. (in
some provinces, such as Quebec, a mix of public or private
insurance will then cover most of the purchase of medication;
everyone is covered by the public plan, but your employer is
mandated to get a private plan if they can)When Shkreli says "f--
Walmart" (in the Vice interview), it's horrifying, because I know
a lot of people in the US who are not covered by insurance, so
they buy medication at Walmart.. This is really hard to
understand.
freehunter - 2 hours ago
There are no serious proposals on the table with any chance of
becoming law. The ruling party believes that government should
not be involved in healthcare in any way and would rather move
in the direction of less regulation instead of more.The
minority party has several plans, but are still divided.
RodericDay - 2 hours ago
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/all-of-your-attempts-...>
For some reason, recently a number of writers seem to have taken
it upon themselves to salvage Martin Shkreli?s reputation.
Previously, there had been a rough consensus that Shkreli, the
oily, simpering pharmaceutical executive who raised the price of
HIV drugs by 5000 percent before being indicted on fraud charges,
was one of the most cretinous human beings alive. This seemed
utterly uncontroversial, in fact so self-evident as to render
debate unnecessary. [...] But a miniature genre of article has
sprung up recently: the Martin Skhreli Is Not As Bad As You Think
hot take. From Vanity Fair to The Washington Post to The New
Yorker, authors have issued the provocative thesis that, far from
being the mealy, smirking, patronizing little snot he appears to
be both at a distance and up close, Shkreli is anything from a
blameless cog in a vast dysfunctional apparatus to a sweet and
tender do-gooder unfairly disparaged by a society too stupid and
hateful to appreciate his genius.> And the Vice profile, while
questioning a number of Shkreli?s claims and containing numerous
criticisms, calls Shkreli a ?finance wunderkind? and ?a Horatio
Alger story? and sympathetically relays Shkreli?s claim that his
unapologetically money-grubbing attitude is merely an exaggerated
caricature that he plays for the public to entertain himself.
[...] Let?s be clear: these reporters are dupes.> One of
Shkreli?s ex-girlfriends has confirmed that he is a manipulative,
psychologically abusive habitual liar with zero capacity for
empathy. As she explained: It soon became obvious that Martin was
a pathological liar, would pretend to cheat on me and brag about
it to raise his value in my eyes, so I?d always feel like I was
hanging on by a thread, could be replaced, would vie for his
approval and forgiveness.> Shkreli?s ex-girlfriend also displayed
screenshots of conversations in which Shkreli offered to pay her
ten thousand dollars for sex, a proposition that revolted her.>
His menacing behavior has been noted elsewhere: he has been
accused of waging a harassment campaign against an ex-employee,
writing in an email that ?I hope to see you and your four
children homeless and will do whatever I can to assure this.?
cloakandswagger - 3 hours ago
I agree. My initial perception of Shkreli was the commonly
accepted one of revulsion and hatred. After watching the Vice
piece, plus a lot of Shkreli's finance talks and live streams, I
find him pretty charming and unbelievably intelligent.
pishpash - 3 hours ago
These are words you'd use to describe any successful con man.
moxious - 3 hours ago
"Charming and unbelievably intelligent" are definitely fair
descriptors for this man, just please bear in mind that these
terms probably describe many other people who are also guilty
of fraud. Sure he has his side. And yes he's probably been
treated unfairly by the press. And no, he isn't guilty of all
of the things people say. And yet none of that makes him
actually innocent.
amyjess - 2 hours ago
To add, I would argue that "charming and unbelievably
intelligent" are prerequisites to being a truly great
fraudster.- Charm: a lot of people don't realize this, but
the "con" in "con man" is short for "confidence". They work
by abusing and exploiting people's confidence in them. A con
man has to have enough charm to get people to place their
confidence in him, or the scheme isn't going to work.-
Intelligence: fraud isn't something you can pull off by brute
strength. You need a sharp mind to plan a scheme and carry it
out.If a con man wasn't "charming and unbelievable
intelligent", I'd doubt his efficacy as a con man.And I'll
also add that "charming and unbelievable intelligent" is a
good way to describe a number of serial killers. Charm and
intelligence doesn't a good person make.
sliverstorm - 2 hours ago
It's funny how incredibly susceptible HN seems to be to the
smooth talkers.Yeah, I know this person is technically being
charged with being a Russian double agent and committing
treason, but he just seems so down to earth, relatable, and
smart! Swoon!
s73ver - 3 hours ago
He can be both charming and intelligent, and a complete
douchebag at the same time.
moxious - 3 hours ago
Yes, hat was rather my point, I guess I was just trying to
put it more delicately
dghughes - 3 hours ago
>I find him pretty charming and unbelievably intelligent.Isn't
that part of why people claim he is a psychopath? Smart, lack
of empathy, easily gains people's trust, and charm all bang on
for traits for psychopathy.
[deleted]
CydeWeys - 3 hours ago
The outrageous price increases directly led to people dying
because they couldn't afford life-saving medication.There's no
redeeming yourself from that just because you're charming or
intelligent. Psychopaths often are.
joering2 - 1 hours ago
The outrageous fact that police officer pulled over drunk
driver and his license got suspended for six months for DUI
caused said driver to commit suicide because he couldn't get
to work anymore and as a result - he couldn't support his
family.What a horrible police officer right? There is no
coming back from this...In all seriousness I have a hard time
blaming investor who had all rights to raise the price of his
own product for whatever the fuck reason he wanted to, in a
democratic society and on the free market that USA supposed
to be. And thenof course then there is EpiPen.
purplerabbit - 3 hours ago
Do you have evidence of this happening? Shkreli said publicly
that if anyone couldn't afford his pricey drug he'd ensure
that they got it. I have no idea whether he ever followed
through.
orblivion - 3 hours ago
BTW it's common for drug companies to do this:*
https://www.medicare.gov/pharmaceutical-assistance-
program/* https://www.astrazeneca-
us.com/medicines/Affordability.html*
http://www.pfizerrxpathways.com/
baakss - 3 hours ago
>The outrageous price increases directly led to people dying
because they couldn't afford life-saving medication.Who died?
I'm curious because if that happened, I figure we would have
heard about it. Do you have a link to a story I can read?
shocka98 - 3 hours ago
No it didn't. Provide a source to one person dying from the
price hike. His company literally provides it for free if
someone can't afford it.
ptr_void - 3 hours ago
I would like to know more about this if you have sources, I
have been following Martin Shkreli on a lot of social media
for a while and by his explanations, there shouldn't be any
person hurt as result of the price hike that he is famous
for.
RunawayGalaxy - 3 hours ago
FWIW, he claims that he gave the medicine away for free to
people who could prove they couldn't afford it, so that he
was really only screwing insurance companies. I believe that
he was trying to draw media attention to the outrageous,
legally-allowed colluding practices of the insurance and
pharma industries. It would have been in his best interest to
not draw attention to himself and slowly raise the price of
the drug over time rather than rock the boat and put himself
in the spotlight. I think this agitated a lot of the
established powers in the pharma industry, but we're getting
into tin hat territory now, so I'll leave it at that.
Sangermaine - 3 hours ago
>FWIW, he claims that he gave the medicine away for free to
people who could prove they couldn't afford it,Sorry, I
find it hard to take the word of someone who was convicted
of committing fraud. Fraud that was committed before these
claims were made. I guess defrauding his investors was also
some 11th dimensional chess move designed to show the
weakness of the financial industry, right?Move over Jesus,
we have a new martyr who suffers for our salvation.
RunawayGalaxy - 7 minutes ago
That's an extremely valid point. But there are documented
cases of it being true.
ceejayoz - 3 hours ago
> FWIW, he claims that he gave the medicine away for free
to people who could prove they couldn't afford it, so that
he was really only screwing insurance companies.Screwing
insurance companies means increased costs for everyone. I'd
really rather not pay 20% higher premiums every year to pad
someone like Shkreli's pocketbook.
MichaelGG - 3 hours ago
Great, then get the FDA to approve more people to make
lifesaving drugs? A system where you're counting on the
generosity of companies to charge low prices seems rather
flawed.Only a couple thousand people use Daraprim in the
US. He claims 2/3rd of sales are to the USG at 1c per
pill. So if there's 700 full price patients at $100K a
course, that's an extra $70M on 3 trillion?Companies were
doing this before he did, and keep doing it now. So get
the FDA to change or have a "dire needs" import rule or
fix the system.
Clubber - 3 hours ago
>A system where you're counting on the generosity of
companies to charge low prices seems rather flawed.Oh, it
is absolutely flawed and completely corrupt. It's so
corrupt it's costing lives rather than just money. I'm
not saying it's happening, but I wouldn't be surprised if
the FDA's mandates and budget for approval aren't somehow
related to keeping profits high.
seiferteric - 3 hours ago
There are a lot of details that people seem to gloss over
or haven't heard about. I am not sure if its to be
believed or if he was just trying to repair his
reputation, but he claims that jacking prices up on
common drugs was to fund R&D into medicines for less
common diseases where treatments are very expensive or
don't exist at all. I found that to be a compelling
argument because as far as I see it, at least he is
(supposedly) trying to do something for these people,
while others ignore them. Basically getting insurance
companies to pay a lot for some drugs (even if it leads
to premium hikes) will socialize the costs of developing
other drugs.
RunawayGalaxy - 2 minutes ago
You'd rather let an entire industry continue to screw
over millions of Americans out of money and access to
healthcare, than let one troll and admittedly fraud
profit from exposing said industry? Fair enough.
brianpgordon - 3 hours ago
If you make money on a trade, someone else is losing
money. That's nothing new.Where he went wrong is going
into the healthcare space with that attitude. Shkreli
thought that he didn't care about the bad PR it would
bring him, but the microscope on him ended up uncovering
illegal behavior.
Clubber - 3 hours ago
I believe that's only true in flat or declining markets.
Growth raises all boats, figuratively speaking.
ImSkeptical - 3 hours ago
Sure, but the solution is not to wish that people like
Shkreli don't raise prices on their drugs. Instead, we
need to reform the US healthcare system to stop problems
like this.Many drugs of similar kind, as Shkreli would
point out, have a similar price. The difference is that
those drugs are owned by faceless pharmaceutical
companies with PR teams. Shkreli was an obnoxious person
who was doing an obnoxious thing and as a result the
government swatted him with some unrelated charges
(Incidentally, I thought his defense of "I didn't commit
fraud, because all investors made money" was a pretty
good defense).
singtings - 2 hours ago
Why did you think his defense was a good one against
fraud? He lied to people who gave him their money. That
is what fraud is. The outcome does not matter.
ImSkeptical - 1 hours ago
Fraud has other components beyond just lying. For
example, I could tell you that I'm Santa Claus, and, due
to the rising complexity of children's toys, I need more
money to hire additional elves this year, would you
please donate?That wouldn't be fraud though, because,
among other things, you aren't damaged by it. You might
be damaged by it if you sent me your money, and I
actually used it to buy myself sugar cookies, but you
didn't.What I'm trying to get at is "harm" or "damage" is
typically a component of a fraud case. In this case, the
defense of "My investors didn't lose money, but actually
made back multiples of their initial investment" seems
very strong to me.Shkreli had a company which failed and
lost investors money. Rather than break the bad news, he
lied to them, started another company, made more money,
and paid back his investors. I may have the details
wrong, but from this article, that was my main
takeaway.The point about damage goes to intent. Did
Shkreli lie to people to take their money and make
himself rich? Or did he lie to people to get a working
productive business and pay off his investors? The fact
that he did the latter implies his intent was the
latter.If I were an investor, I'd be upset that the
initial investment failed. I'd be litigious if I
realized he had lied to me. If he lied to me and
returned my money with profit, I'd just stop doing
business with him in the future.
Sangermaine - 3 hours ago
>Sure, but the solution is not to wish that people like
Shkreli don't raise prices on their drugs. Instead, we
need to reform the US healthcare system to stop problems
like this.The solution is both. Just because a broken
system allows you to get away with being a monster
doesn't justify you being a monster.
[deleted]
freehunter - 2 hours ago
>the solution is not to wish that people like Shkreli
don't raise prices on their drugsI can wish whatever the
hell I want to wish. Just because it's legal doesn't mean
it's right, and everyone here arguing that he's a good
person because he's not doing anything illegal is
inherently arguing that "legal" == "morally right".No.
He's still a shitty person and I can wish him the most
painfully infected ingrown toenails and I will still
sleep soundly at night.I wish that people would do the
right thing. I also wish Congress would fix our health
care issues. I can do both, and they're both just as
likely to happen. In the meantime, he deserves all the
public shame in the world.
[deleted]
Lewton - 3 hours ago
Find one person who got it for free
Clubber - 3 hours ago
Patrick Rice gets it free for life after a Reddit AMA.
Google not work for you, or were you trying to stonewall
the discussion with Rush Limbaugh
tactics?http://nypost.com/2016/02/02/i-was-a-victim-of-
the-pharma-ja...
Lewton - 1 hours ago
There's that one, very public, case. That happened after
the entire ordeal blew up, and happened after shkreli had
said that people got it for free if they needed itIt's
not nothing, but it's not exactly impressive either
[deleted]
Clubber - 1 hours ago
So maybe instead of saying, "Find one person who got it
for free," you should have said, "Find one person who got
it for free that I like even though the US has some
serious medical privacy laws and therefore it's nearly
impossible to find unless that sick someone (with HIV)
voluntarily comes forward publicly, risking their career
and future job prospects, to be on the side of a person
that has been heavily vilified in the media circus."
[deleted]
ceejayoz - 2 hours ago
Patient assistance programs are pretty common.I'm on a
$10k once every three months medication, and the drug
company called to offer to pay any out-of-pocket costs up
to $20k/year (deductible, copay, coinsurance etc.) I
might have had, regardless of income.The med probably
costs them a couple hundred dollars in manufacturing, so
they're happy to pay $20k/year to get $40k/year from my
insurance.(I turned them down - I have no deductible and
a $15 copay, but plenty of others aren't in that
situation.)
bmelton - 2 hours ago
Not trying to play contrarian here, but are there any
reported cases of people who've actually died for lack of
Daraprim?> Find one person who got it for freeThis guy
got it free, for life.
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-
problems/this...
artursapek - 1 hours ago
> The outrageous price increases directly led to people dying
because they couldn't afford life-saving medication.Show a
single piece of evidence of that.
nv-vn - 3 hours ago
How many people died directly due to Martin's actions? I'm
very skeptical of your claim and found nothing to back it up
after a quick Google search. The first result was a Quora
answer that even said that his moves resulted in no deaths.
Do you have any citations for your claim?
michrassena - 3 hours ago
I think it's interesting that since we can put a face and a
name on that behavior, it's easy to see that if those price
hikes led to someone's death, his actions were immoral or
downright evil. It's easy to draw a direct line from his
actions to someone else's suffering.It's well established
that what he did so wantonly happens in more hushed tones as
a matter of business. The lines are blurred, we find it hard
to point fingers at individuals. If Skreli's actions are
immoral, so are the actions of the anonymous thousands like
him. This is the textbook "banality of evil", and we can see
similar consequences everywhere. This seems like classic
Philosophy 101 material, is it moral to raise the cost of
food when someone will starve?
tmat - 3 hours ago
This is absolutely not true. You're speaking out of your ass
here. 0 people died. If they couldn't afford it HE GAVE IT TO
THEM FREE.
enraged_camel - 3 hours ago
It is very common for "psychopaths" to play charming. That is
one of many ways in which they manipulate others because it
makes the victims lower their defenses.
aaronbrethorst - 3 hours ago
Lots of sociopaths are charming. Fun article:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qbxb4m/charming-manipulat...
legohead - 3 hours ago
The YouTube video of him doing an Ebay Analysis [1] was very
interesting I thought, both from a technical point of view and
another look at his character.[1]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFSf5YhYQbw
mattjack - 3 hours ago
Thank you so much for sharing this, I've been looking for
something just like it.
eyeownyde - 40 minutes ago
He's doing something similar, looking at some companies in the
video game industry right now,
live.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvArpDQHf-Y
jmcgough - 2 hours ago
I watched a few of his early stock evaluation videos, really
informative. Shkreli's a bit sociopathic, but he's wickedly
smart, in his spare time he teaches himself javascript and
organic chemistry.
kylev - 3 hours ago
Are you still inclined to trust his teaching? I mean... he's a
convicted financial criminal and you're linking to his finance
video.
tnecniv - 3 hours ago
Watching Excel power users is really fascinating.
corobo - 3 hours ago
I think I got an epiphany watching this - is this what the
missus sees when I'm tapping away at a bunch of (to her)
garbled text flicking between text editor tabs, webpages and
CLIs
Unbeliever69 - 3 hours ago
Oh yeah, watching his Excel You Tube video puts me in awe!
Can't tell you how many people I've recommended that video
to!
kbenson - 3 hours ago
The first time I saw that video was when referenced in a HN
submission about Excel use[1]. You might find it
interesting.1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12448545
shostack - 2 hours ago
I spend a good chunk of my day in Excel and some might
consider me a power user. He's pretty decent, and I picked up
a couple tips from him (using a graphical line object instead
of messing with cell borders for something you might need to
move frequently for example).There is definitely something
mesmerizing though about watching someone conjure complex
data onto a screen seemingly by magic and a few key strokes
though. Although really it is just memorizing a ton of hot
keys and a bunch of buried menu shortcuts.
revelation - 1 hours ago
Lots of tapping, little happening really. This is what it
must be like when your horizon starts and stops with Excel,
you find yourself copying numbers from a SEC PDF to do the
same model for the umpteenth time.
aerovistae - 3 hours ago
Yeah, I think he's better at excel than I've ever been at
anything. Jesus.
amsilprotag - 2 hours ago
The timing of this video is a lesson in humility. It's posted
one month before a positive earnings report showing high growth
in active buyers that gives the stock an ongoing 1.3x price
increase. As far as I have viewed, Shkreli seems ambivalent,
using vague heuristics to predict the future -- expectation of
a yahoo-like slow decline, poor UX and discovery, and stiff
Amazon competition.https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:EBAY
(click 5y)https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/08/11/why-shares-
of-ebay...
[deleted]
[deleted]
swang - 3 hours ago
> Prosecutors argued that Shkreli lied to investors in two hedge
funds and the pharmaceutical company Retrophin, all of which he
founded. Shkreli told investors he graduated from Columbia
University, that his hedge fund was large and profitable, and
that he had hired an auditor, they said. These were all lies,
according to prosecutors.yeah seems like a great dude...
kbenson - 3 hours ago
Interestingly, his fraud seems to fall into two categories.
Lying about his fund's bonafides and status on one side, and
working hard to make sure those same investors got what they
were expecting by founding a company, making it successful and
paying them out from the profits.It sounds like he definitely
lied to investors, but he apparently didn't intend to steal
their money, and took pains to make sure he did not cost them
money in the end. Apparently most investors in the fund that
lost all it's money ended up close to tripling their investment
after he worked to replace the lost money in the end.That
leaves me thinking that "up to 20 years" is a bit harsh given
the facts. Hopefully the judge will take that into
consideration and give him a more lenient sentence.
Sangermaine - 3 hours ago
Are you kidding? He's human garbage, let him rot. It's
astounding how people are being taken in by this con man.
kbenson - 3 hours ago
Okay, I'll bite. Why do you think he's human garbage? You
felt strongly enough to reply, maybe you can muster the
effort to explain why you think that?
wfunction - 3 hours ago
> Okay, I'll bite. Why do you think he's human
garbage.Obtaining a license just to increase a drug's
price from $13.50 to $750 for no apparent reason other
than greed isn't enough for you?
kbenson - 3 hours ago
> Obtaining a license just to increase a drug's price
from $13.50 to $750 for no apparent reason other than
greed isn't enough for you?This case isn't about that.
Are you suggesting we should convict and punish people on
trial for one crime because we don't like their past
activities and behaviors? Even if those other behaviors
were illegal, they should be considered during a separate
trial that's actually pertaining to them.
wfunction - 3 hours ago
> This case isn't about that.That wasn't your question,
was it? You asked why he's human garbage, I explained
why. I wasn't defending or attacking this case, I was
explaining why some think he is human garbage.
kbenson - 3 hours ago
Edit: Whoops, different person. See bottom.> Nowhere was
I (or you) saying anything about this case.Your specific
words in your original response were "He's human garbage,
let him rot." That response was to me saying I think the
details of the case lead me to believe that I think he
should a light sentence.You very specifically noted
through that euphemism that you think he shouldn't get a
light sentence in this case because he's human
garbage.Edit: Sorry. That was someone else. I was
specifically asking in context, but that wasn't you
originally. Mea Culpa. Leaving it here with this note so
people that saw it previously can see me retraction.
wfunction - 3 hours ago
For what it's worth, I've colored the usernames on my HN
discussions so I don't make mistakes like this. Maybe HN
should do that natively.
amyjess - 2 hours ago
Al Capone wouldn't have been prosecuted for tax evasion
if he wasn't an infamous mobster.This is how society's
immune system functions.
kbenson - 2 hours ago
Al Capone wouldn't have had to evade taxes if he wasn't
obtaining his income through illegal means.I also see a
distinction between Capone and Shkreli in that Capone's
other actions which may have influenced his trial were
myriad illegal activities that they couldn't get evidence
for. Shkreli is just believed to be an asshole.
jamra - 3 hours ago
I believe he reinvests 80% back into R&D. That's a pretty
large sum. It's a lot more than the big companies. If a
better drug for toxoplasmosis is developed that doesn't
kill people, it would have been a great achievement.
MichaelGG - 3 hours ago
And what's wrong with that? Be upset that the FDA only
approved one company to make the drug.And it's not like
anyone was hurt. Overall, insurers ended up paying a bit
more (drugs are only 10-15% of US health care costs, and
very few people need Daraprim). Big deal. If more people
did this, then the system would get this issue addressed,
maybe.On top of that, he said he was investing the
profits into researching better drugs, though of course
that's not a requirement.
Osmose - 3 hours ago
It is possible to be upset with both the system and the
people using it.
MichaelGG - 2 hours ago
True, and if it comes out that Turing knowingly blocked
people from getting it despite knowing their eligibility,
then he deserves derision. But so far he's just pointed
out the huge issues and laughed, driving up awareness.At
some point if your system is so terribly busted and no
one is fixing it, eh, maybe you lose the right to hate
people abusing it. Or maybe his wit and charisma is
making me blind to the issue here.
KekDemaga - 3 hours ago
Can I presume you offer your skills to anyone who asks at
a wage that reflects a minimum cost of living (ie no
iPhone or other luxuries the bare minimum cost of
living). If not what is your reasoning beyond apparent
greed?
wfunction - 3 hours ago
I don't understand your comment.
KekDemaga - 2 hours ago
Take a look at wealth globally, if GDP was evenly
distributed every year everyone would get roughly ten
thousand dollars. That's pretax, thus the total average
spend per human being be in direct cash payments or via
governmental programs should not exceed that number in a
fair system. In western nations the poor see double that
number on average in cash compensation, and more than
triple that number when you include government
services.My point is fairness and accusations of greed
cut both ways, if fairness was truly the concern of the
poster he would also cut his standard of living in order
to benefit those much worse off than him. As he more than
likely does not his argument is not "let's increase
fairness" but rather "people in my class and I deserve
more" and that's the same argument the people raising the
drug prices are making.
wfunction - 17 minutes ago
It seems like you are completely missing the point. This
has little to do with economic inequality. The issue is
not that this guy had a random product and raised its
price. If this had been a car or an iPhone, we could not
have cared less if he had been "greedy" and selling it
for $1M/piece. The issue is that this is medicine we're
talking about. People don't view healthcare and medicine
like they view ordinary services and products. Many
people (perhaps not you) have a much higher threshold for
what kind of practice is moral/ethical/acceptable in
medicine. That's why even in the middle of a battlefield
people think it is inhumane to prevent doctors from
treating injured soldiers, the war be damned. There is
more to humanity than money.
quantgenius - 3 hours ago
The price increase for Retrophin from 12.50 to 750 was
NOT for no apparent reason. The previous owners of the
rights sold the rights cheaply because they were unable
to make money selling Retrophin, and in fact had large
losses for years, despite multiple large price hikes.
Businesses that continually lose money shut down. Most of
the costs are large fixed regulatory costs for each drug
manufactured that a business owner cannot cut, so the
only realistic alternative is to raise the price
dramatically.A USD 750 list price for a drug does NOT
result in most people paying the list price. Most people
get it via insurance, insurance companies pay a
negotiated rate and you pay the copay (frequently higher
than what the insurance company actually pays). Retrophin
isn't a widely used drug so the effect on overall
premiums was also tiny. His company literally offered the
drug for free to anyone who for whom insurance didn't pay
for it and who couldn't afford it. He also had a publicly
stated business plan whereby he would use profits from
Retrophin to invest in research into similar drugs which
pharmaceutical companies have not been doing since
Retrophin had been losing money.Given the byzantine
manner in which payments are actually made in the US,
there simply isn't any other way to price an orphan drug,
i.e. a drug that very few people actually need. The only
way to make a business that produces life-and-death drugs
needed by very few people sustainable is to price the
drug very high due to very high fixed regulatory costs
per drug manufactured. If you want to change this, it
needs legislation and FDA reform. Demonizing businesses
that raise prices to ensure they make a reasonable
profit, will only result in drugs that are life-and-death
for a small number of people either getting taken off the
market or not coming to the market in the first
place.What's FAR more concerning is things like the
recent increases in pricing for things like the Epi-Pen.
Prices were raised 10x but also the expiration date on
Epi-Pens is artificially short, so hospitals, schools etc
are forced to throw away perfectly usable Epi-Pens for no
good reason. Nobody talks about that because that price
hike was by order of a senator's daughter. Shrekili just
happens to be a bit of a PR nincompoop.What we really
need is a populace that thinks carefully and
independently and a press that actually spends money on
investigative reporting instead of relying on what
politicians tell them to report, which helps their bottom
line since it's much cheaper.
enschlnd - 3 hours ago
He's not kidding. He's not human garbage. It's not
astounding that different people have different opinions at
all. Your post suggests that you're very emotionally
attached to your opinion, which is not good. Nor takes into
consideration some basic premises which are necessary for
people to understand one another.
Sangermaine - 3 hours ago
>He's not human garbage.Yeah, but he is.Spare me the faux
"logically objective" pose. There is a reason he's known
as the "most hated man in America". His actions have
earned him this reputation.
pyroinferno - 2 hours ago
>"Spare me the logic" Yup, this is hackernews alright.
mwfunk - 2 hours ago
You made it look like "Spare me the logic" was a direct
quote but it wasn't, and it clearly is not a summary of
what was meant. Always argue against what people say and
(even more importantly) what they mean, not against your
own not-quite-accurate-but-easier-to-refute version of
what people say.
to_bpr - 1 hours ago
>There is a reason he's known as the "most hated man in
America".Because that title sells clicks, much like every
other piece of hyperbolic clickbait spewed onto the
internet these days?If he truly is the most hated man in
America, by fact, then it's simply further proof that
Americans, as a collective entity, are willingly at the
highest extremes of ignorance.
charlesdm - 3 hours ago
Plenty of people who one would classify as "human garbage"
make hundreds of millions. Frankly, it does not matter.What
matters is: 1) did people lose money, due to some scam? and
2) did he do anything illegal.
singtings - 2 hours ago
Well he committed fraud but people did not lose money.
So yes to question 2 and no to question 1.
mindfulplay - 3 hours ago
Regardless of big an asshole he is based on seeing the Vice
interview and thinking about the big fraud pharma industry
makes me think he is actually way better than the conniving
people who run big pharma.This guy speaks out and maybe he
is an asshole and suddenly everyone hates him. The rest
keep their profits to themselves and we don't seem to care
or mind.
beginpanic - 2 hours ago
Everyone has choices to make. Martin could have easily
not been an asshole to cancer patients or investors at
his fund. You want to let him off the hook just because
he said "yup I'm a dick" while he was making the choice
to be a dick and profited massively from being a
dick?Acknowledging the fact that what you're doing is
wrong does not suddenly make that thing right. It's still
wrong. And you're still an asshole for doing it.
[deleted]
Sangermaine - 3 hours ago
Of course we care. People are criticizing the pharma
industry's practices and calling for change all the time.
Shkreli is a particularly obnoxious symptom, but he's not
the disease.
[deleted]
[deleted]
charlesdm - 3 hours ago
I haven't followed everything closely, but did anyone lose
money in the end?
gizmo - 3 hours ago
Merrill Lynch lost millions.https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/05
/merrill-lynch-salesman-descr...
kbenson - 3 hours ago
The NY Times article[1] presented by an early top level
comment implies that no, they didn't.The investors who
invested all made money ? by the defense?s tally, more than
triple what they invested.1: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0
8/04/business/dealbook/martin-...
charlesdm - 3 hours ago
I don't particularly like the guy, but I do believe him
to be pretty smart. How can he be convicted of fraud if
he got them a 3x return?
bmelton - 3 hours ago
Because he defrauded them in order to get their 3x
return.Put simply, if I burn my house down in order to
collect the insurance money, I've committed insurance
fraud whether or not I pay that money back, and no amount
of profit on the payback negates the illegality.
kbenson - 2 hours ago
Although, interestingly, he didn't steal their money, he
lost it in a bad trade, which is probably (maybe?)
covered under the risks associated with the fund's
operation. The deception was not telling people their
money was gone (and also lying somewhat about details of
the fund initially). Given that the loss was an accident
that he didn't profit from, and that he worked to repay
the money, there's a critical difference between your
example and what's reportedly happened here, which is
intent.It's more similar to you managing a property for
someone, and telling them you got fire insurance when you
haven't yet, and then when the house burns down
accidentally you work to make the money to cover what the
insurance would have covered. You did commit fraud by
not getting the insurance when you said you would, but
you also covered the costs in the end.
bmelton - 2 hours ago
The fraud part, which also happens to have been the
illegal part, is that he misrepresented the size of the
situation while soliciting investments. It might
eventually have been true, but was specifically not true
at the time he made the statements he made.That said, I
agree that my analogy was bad, and I wasn't trying to
assert that Shkrelli deliberately set the house on fire
as much as I was just looking for an appropriate analogy
of something that is illegal even though it did not have
any financial damages.The point was that while damages
from fraud may be financial, the fraud is the damage, and
the lie is the crime.
kbenson - 2 hours ago
> That said, I agree that my analogy was bad, and I
wasn't trying to assert that Shkrelli deliberately set
the house on fireYeah, I was just trying to add more
information to it, and point out what I thought were
interesting portions of the case. Less a rebuttal and
more an clarification and addition. :)The case itself is
very interesting because the situation is very
interesting, and that's only compounded by his public
persona, which is reviled by many because of prior media
attention.
kbenson - 3 hours ago
He lied about the current status of the fund for quite a
while as he attempted to replace the money, and sent
fraudulent reports showing good returns when all the
money was lost. He later replaced all the lost funds
with profits from the company he founded (and reportedly
worked hard to make profitable).I'm not sure whether that
company was the one responsible for the drug price hike,
and whether that constituted a lot of the profits or that
actually went back into research as I believe he said it
did during that episode.
CalChris - 3 hours ago
fraud != stealingfraud wrongful or criminal deception
intended to result in financial or personal gainstealing take
(another person's property) without permission or legal right
and without intending to return itNo, Shkreli didn't intend
to steal their money since they gave it to him. However, he
did in fact deceive them as to what he did with said money.
So he was convicted of fraud.
kbenson - 3 hours ago
Yes, I wasn't calling for no sentence, or not guilty, just
that the details do provide mitigating circumstances IMO,
and that might merit a lenient sentence.Also of note, in
the NY Times article[1], they call out how his defense
tried to mount a defense based on the financial profit or
personal gain portion of the definition.The defense asked
why Mr. Shkreli, if he wanted to commit fraud, didn?t
commit fraud: He ultimately paid back his investors with
shares of Retrophin, which became valuable, along with
cash. His lawyers also asked how Mr. Shkreli profited,
painting him as a hardworking oddball who, rather than
throwing in the towel after his funds imploded, vowed to
get his investors? money back. He paid them back late, they
argued, but he paid them back.Apparently, that wasn't
successful.1: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/04/business/d
ealbook/martin-...
nprog - 19 minutes ago
Wire fraud (1343) is both inchoate and a specific intent
crime. To be convicted, it doesn't matter if there was an
actual loss, but must be shown that the defendant intended
to defraud, that is that "[T]he purpose of the scheme 'must
be to injure'" (US v Regent). This is also the 2nd Circuit,
which has the most substantive case law on wire fraud in
the US (Regent, Starr, McNally, D'Amato, Skilling, etc). I
should add that Shkreli was not convicted on his wire fraud
counts, which are among the most blunt overused weapons a
prosecutor has. Almost no one survives a wire fraud charge,
yet Shkreli was. He was convicted of securities fraud and
conspiracy (for the same), which are also specific intent,
however, 'recklessness' specifically is insufficient in a
wirefraud case (helpful but insufficient), whereas in
securities fraud, scienter is often shown prima facie by
reckless indifference for the truth. I believe most
salespersons would fail this test in this context. And,
virtually every startup I've ever reviewed has unwittingly
committed securities fraud, and in the hands of a
prosecutor, it's usually only a question of whether they
are motivated to target you (for some crime, if only they
can "find it") for general behavior they disapprove of, and
less so motivated to target a clear
crime.https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-
manual-949-pr...
emerongi - 2 hours ago
A lot of people who do bad things don't intend to do bad
things. He got lucky he didn't fuck up like everyone else who
thinks that way. It doesn't make him any better though, on a
bad day he could've ended like the rest of them and then
everyone would be screaming how awful Shkreli is.
Clubber - 3 hours ago
Also, according to the NYT article, all investors tripled their
money."The investors who invested all made money ? by the
defense?s tally, more than triple what they invested."
sigmar - 3 hours ago
It's not fraud if investors make money? Someone better tell
Madoff that he's getting out.
fnovd - 3 hours ago
The operative word here is "all."
sigmar - 3 hours ago
That doesn't matter. Lying during a business deal is
still fraud.
Clubber - 2 hours ago
Ever watch a commercial?
[deleted]
cowsandmilk - 3 hours ago
So, it is okay to lie to investors, as long as you eventually
pull a success off? And you make those investors you were
lying to money by committing fraud on the investors in your
new company (Retrophin), so they make money, but not as much
they would have if you weren't secretly taking profits to pay
off the investors you previously defrauded?
Clubber - 3 hours ago
I never said he was a great dude, but the media's portal of him
is inaccurate (shocker).
huac - 3 hours ago
I mean, everybody came out okay - Shkreli really made his
investors a lot of money! Yeah, he lied, but he did some
incredible work: typical fraudsters take your money and run -
he doesn't fit that mold.Honestly, the issue was that he's an
utter asshole, including to his investors. Investors are
willing to put with a lot if you triple their money, but
Shkreli managed to cross that line. That made him an easy
target for the prescription drugs investigation and media
circus.
sehugg - 3 hours ago
He started his career as a short seller that defrauded banks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Shkreli#MSMB_Capital_Ma.
..
Harimwakairi - 2 hours ago
> ...he did some incredible work...Can you elaborate on this?
yellowstuff - 2 hours ago
He pivoted from running a hedge fund worth -33 cents to
creating a pharmaceutical company currently worth $800
million.
BinaryIdiot - 3 hours ago
> typical fraudsters take your money and run - he doesn't fit
that mold.So if everything happened identically but he failed
to make them money _then_ it would be bad? I don't
understand.
rifung - 2 hours ago
> I mean, everybody came out okay - Shkreli really made his
investors a lot of money! Yeah, he lied, but he did some
incredible work: typical fraudsters take your money and run -
he doesn't fit that mold.I think it's nice everyone came out
okay, besides Shkreli in this case I guess. I still think
what he did was wrong though because if you don't punish that
kind of behavior, then you're encouraging people to do things
that are wrong in the hopes they will succeed, and it won't
always work out as it happened to do so here.
blahblah3 - 3 hours ago
Just because his investors made money doesn't excuse
him.Suppose you lent 10,000 to a friend and the friend
promised to return it within a year. A year later, your
friend doesn't pay you back and makes a bunch of excuses.
Instead, he takes the 5,000 he has left to the casino,
gambles it on the roulette wheel and by luck manages to turn
that into 30,000 and pays you back 1.5 years later. I don't
think you would be happy with that situation...
lojack - 3 hours ago
Your analogy is slightly off... suppose you lent $10,000 to
an acquaintance known for being able to double it, and they
promise to return it doubled in a year. A year later you
ask for your money and he gives you $6,000 from someone
else he convinced to do the same thing along with $6,000
from a different venture that was taking off and $8,000
work of equity for that startup. You didn't quite get what
was promised, it seems a little shady, but at least he
didn't rip you off.
soundwave106 - 2 hours ago
The problem is, in most cases, historically the type of
actions Shkreli tried often ends in disaster (often done
by someone intentionally being malicious, I might
add).Shkreli may have been able to work his pseudo-Ponzi-
ish scheme to investors' benefit. But it is pretty easy
to look up the sordid history of the vast majority of
Ponzi-type schemes, to see why this type of activity is
generally illegal.
benesch - 3 hours ago
You might find FedEx's origin story interesting.> ?I asked
Fred where the funds had come from, and he responded, ?The
meeting with the General Dynamics board was a bust and I
knew we needed money for Monday, so I took a plane to Las
Vegas and won $27,000.? I said, ?You mean you took our last
$5,000? how could you do that?? He shrugged his shoulders
and said, ?What difference does it make? Without the funds
for the fuel companies, we couldn?t have flown anyway.?
Fred?s luck held again. It was not much, but it came at a
critical time and kept us in business for another week.?
[0][0]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15/fred-
smith-blackjac...
pm90 - 3 hours ago
Technically, Fred committed a fraud (actually I forget
the technical term for the crime where you misuse funds).
Its just that he wasn't prosecuted for it.
jetti - 2 hours ago
Could you be thinking of Misappropriation of funds? I'm
not a lawyer and I haven't spent a lot of time looking it
up but from the few places I looked it doesn't seem that
it would fit.
Clubber - 3 hours ago
Honestly, I would be thrilled to triple my money in 18
months. Using the gambling analogy is disingenuous though.
singhrac - 3 hours ago
I don't see why it's disingenuous? Investing is extremely
risky, and I'm not convinced that he didn't just get
lucky on the second bet.This isn't ok because the
original investor was paid off. That's also how Ponzi
schemes work - the original investors are paid off (I
know, here the money seems to be generated from
Retrophin, but the behavior is the same).This gave me a
perspective:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-12-17
/martin-sh...
Clubber - 2 hours ago
Investing money with some knowledge and control of the
outcome vs. gambling with house stakes are two completely
different categories of risk.
blahblah3 - 3 hours ago
I think that's being too results driven and doesn't take
into account the risk that was taken. As another example,
suppose your uber driver drove you home while
intoxicated. Even if the trip ended up being fine (no
accidents, smooth ride), you would still have valid
justification for complaining about this.
Clubber - 2 hours ago
I understand a risk was taken, but gambling has a less
than 50% chance of return (by design) while buying a
Pharma company that you control is conceivably less
risk.Let me add to this: Buying a company you have a
government mandated monopoly on (patent) that owns a
product that people will die if they don't take
(inelastic demand), and has a huge barrier to entry for
new, competing entrants (FDA) is conceivably less risk
than throwing chips on a roulette wheel.
savanaly - 3 hours ago
What if he lied to you, but then went out and through a
combination of talent, hard work, and luck somehow made the
money to make you whole and then some?
jsmthrowaway - 3 hours ago
Then he lied to me, our business concludes, and I testify
that he lied to me when asked. Pretty simple.
pm90 - 3 hours ago
The law is very clear on what is a crime and what isn't. So
when he misused his funds, he committed a crime. And he was
prosecuted and convicted for it. Doesn't matter if in the end
he cured cancer: he still committed a crime.I have a feeling
that since most people have never dealt with the justice
system, they fail to appreciate just how black and white it
really is. While the movies/TV do portray cases where
"extenuating circumstances" help the case, most cases are
pretty straightforward.
monksy - 3 hours ago
Sounds like the standard playbook for startups. Oh you wanted a
product, you should be happy with the mvp.
Barrin92 - 3 hours ago
"but he had a nice twitch stream" is just about the most absurd
defense of someone involved in large scale corporate fraud I
have witnessed in a long time
lucaspm98 - 3 hours ago
To be fair, the quote itself says "according to prosecutors" so
this is only one side of the story.
eli - 3 hours ago
Well, 12 jurors agreed.
lucaspm98 - 3 hours ago
They agreed he committed a crime not that he wasn't a
"great dude." I'm not saying he is, just that this is using
a claim without any evidence or response to paint a picture
of his whole life.
throwaway76543 - 3 hours ago
They mostly didn't agree with the prosecution. He's been
convicted on only 3 of the 8 counts.
[deleted]
dgfgfdagasdfgfa - 3 hours ago
> Shkreli seems to be trying to expose this hypocrisy, but the
news loves their stories.It's hard to buy into this when he was
directly profiting from this attempt to expose.
randyrand - 55 minutes ago
Why not both? What he's doing, creating outrage legally, is one
of the most effective ways to create positive change that
actually affects the whole industry. And hes making money too!
Win-win?He committed early on to give financial aid to those
that could not afford the new drug's price. His conscious is
rather clean. I see it no different to what most private
schools do - charge a huge sticker price then offer aid, so
that everyone gets charged as much as they can afford, even if
barely.
am1988 - 3 hours ago
Of course they are legal. It doesn't make him any better as a
person.
Clubber - 3 hours ago
So here is why it's important to take Shkreli down. Congress
gets paid lots of money to not regulate pharmaceuticals. 13
democrats recently voted against a bill allowing the US to
import Pharma from Canada, so it's both
parties.https://newrepublic.com/minutes/139825/cory-booker-not-
frien...Congress is in hot water over the cost of prescription
drugs and they need to do something, and something fast ... as
long as that isn't actually reducing the cost of prescription
drugs, because, you know, donors. Shkreli is the perfect mark,
or scapegoat for this because he has been quite vocal. Consider
he isn't the only one doing this. Many (donating) Pharma
companies do this yet are quiet about it.https://www.forbes.com
/sites/matthewherper/2017/02/10/a-6000...Anyway, if they take
down Shkreli, congress looks like they are doing something,
without actually doing anything. Notice they didn't take him
down for his price gouging. Yes, that will continue to go on
just as the donors planned. The masses are satisfied with their
sacrifice. Carry on.
aaronbrethorst - 3 hours ago
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/.
..
Clubber - 2 hours ago
I appreciate that link. I haven't seen that image though.
The clarification isn't that inspiring. It seems to be
arguing that they do in fact take money, it just isn't
quite as much as the image represents. All of them fell
back on their concerns that Canadian drugs don't satisfy
our "safety standards." Honestly, if it were El Salvador or
something, maybe, but Canada, not so much."The 13 Democrats
did vote against one amendment that was intended to lower
drug prices through reimportation of medicines from Canada,
and they have each taken money from drugmakers."
PhasmaFelis - 3 hours ago
Shkreli was blunt and open about a sleazy thing that many others
are cagey about. That doesn't make him better than them, just
more visible.
Clubber - 3 hours ago
It exposes it. Not quite as monumental, but a Snowden moment.
Remember, congress did squat about the price gouging, because
that's what they get paid to do.
beagle3 - 1 hours ago
I wish it were a Snowden moment, but it wasn't. Analogous
things are happening all the time - e.g.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/business/questcor-finds-
pr... - from $40/botle to $28,000/bottle over a period of 7
years; it has, in fact gone up since, and I can't find the
source right now, but in fact Questcor has also cornered the
synthetic version and jacked it up as well, so everyone in
the US who needs it pays >$15,000/vial ; Meanwhile, if you
get it outside the US, it's still less than $100/vial
anywhere in the world.All pharma companies are supervillians,
and they all corner supplies and jack prices, but they do it
more quietly and usually a little slower. Shkreli just went
to the endgame faster, and had a villain media portrait. But
he is not any different and he definitely did not induce a
Snowden moment. I wish he had.
Clubber - 1 hours ago
I'm a little more hopeful that regard, perhaps misguided.
Shkreli is a commonly known name because of his persona and
the way the media latched on to it. It was a perfect story.
Bad guy, doing bad things to sick people. Hell I even know
how to spell his name and he has been in the news for quite
a while.Questcor on the other hand, I've never heard of.
Not a very juicy story, and any juiciness is the result of
Shkreli. Will it make a difference? There is a lot of money
preventing it from making a difference, but it's about to
become a political career killer to allow this to go on I
believe. At the very least, it's in the public
discourse.Comparatively, Snowden's revelations hasn't
really changed squat either. Maybe I shouldn't be so
optimistic.
bronzeage - 2 hours ago
That interview changed my point of view as well. It does indeed
seem like hypocrisy, and like the competing and stronger drug
companies set up this publication lynch. I can't believe that out
of all the strong drug companies, the first time a drug was
increased in price is this poor 2015 founded company. Why is it,
that the first time we hear about this common practice in drug
industry it's within this relatively new company?
setra - 3 hours ago
Note that this does not have anything to do with his pricing of
pharmaceuticals. From a different article:"Prosecutors say Shkreli
looted his drug company to pay back investors in two failed hedge
funds he ran. The defense says investors got their original
investments back and even made hefty profits."
loeg - 3 hours ago
In theory it had nothing to do with it, although it's not clear
that the prosecution would have gone after him without that
negative attention. Also, it had an effect on the juror pool.
zokier - 3 hours ago
Was it the nazis or soviets (or both) who made effectively
everyone criminal so that they could then persecute them at
will?
beagle3 - 1 hours ago
It's almost every country these days, see e.g.
https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-
Innocent/dp... - which has a slightly clickbaity title, but
worrying content.But it seems Shkreli's transgressions are
not of the "three felonies before breakfast" variety, but
rather things that are indeed often prosecuted (though, it
should be noted, as everyone wronged was made whole, it is
likely that he would not have been prosecuted if he had not
been in the media spotlight as a villain; other remarks here
mentioned that the founding of Fedex had a similar fraud
committed, for example).
sqeaky - 3 hours ago
Putting people like Shkreli into prison for a long time is vital to
the long term stability of society. I wish money didn't buy options
to avoid prison and I wish that people with his behaviors didn't so
often accrue large amounts of money.
cloakandswagger - 3 hours ago
Can you elaborate? Who did Shkreli hurt here and how?
and0 - 3 hours ago
He was found guilty of defrauding investors. He started a fund,
lost a bunch of the money trying to make more money for himself
doing unrelated things with it, and only gave it back much
later by repeatedly lying to the original investors and then
making some of the money back via other means (turning it into
stock in a new pharma company, iirc).It was wildly
irresponsible and definitely fraudulent.
hellofunk - 3 hours ago
One could argue that he hurt a lot of sick people by making it
very difficult or impossible for them to afford the hundreds of
percent price increases he laid upon the drugs he took control
over.Edit:[0] "... it says that the drug is available for free
to people with deep financial need. But Dr. Aberg has watched
her patients have to "jump through the hoops" to get it.
Patients have to prove both financial need and health status,
something that's difficult to focus on when their lives are in
danger. In June, one of her patients gave up on the process.
The patient switched therapies, only to suffer a negative side
effect."[0] http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/25/news/economy
/daraprim-aids-d...
ptr_void - 3 hours ago
I have seen videos where he explains: insurance pays for the
medicine, not individuals, and people who can't afford/have
insurance gets them freely from government programs/their
company programs.
ZenoArrow - 3 hours ago
Price gouging by pharmaceutical companies almost certainly
drives up health insurance costs. It's not a victimless
crime.
ptr_void - 3 hours ago
By his explanation: There are only a small amount of
patient that patients that needs this drug. I think the
number was around 2000.Also drugs are not the largest
part of insurances pay for.
ZenoArrow - 3 hours ago
That doesn't make my previous statement any less
true.Also, I'd suggest focusing on the wider picture.
Price gouging on a single drug may have a minimal impact,
but there have been numerous cases of drug companies
artificially hiking prices of their products, which does
make a substantial difference. There are numerous studies
into this if you're interested.
ptr_void - 3 hours ago
I don't have much understanding of wider picture of drug
prices and insurance to know it, but there certainly
could be such issues. I think the comment I replied to
was edited or I might have accidentally replied to wrong
comment, I am not sure. On similar issue, here's Martin
Shkreli proposing his own idea on this matter to keep
prices down: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbkz2VVUBLE
frgtpsswrdlame - 3 hours ago
>insurance pays for the medicine, not individualsAnd who
pays for insurance? (Hint: It's individuals) Shkreli is
right in that by raising the prices he wasn't really
gouging the sick for thousands and thousands of dollars, he
was gouging all of us with insurance for some fraction of a
penny. It's still wrong.
hellofunk - 3 hours ago
There is a reason why most international insurers will
cover your health concerns everywhere in the world except
the U.S. The American health system has out of control
expenses that are putting immense strain on its every seam.
Making distributors or insurance companies pay much more
because "fuck them" (as Shkreli proudly said) only adds to
a very serious problem in American healthcare.
MichaelGG - 3 hours ago
Good, more people should do this until it breaks and
reforms. And not just do it, but do it with his face and
smile. Because companies have been doing this for a long
time, but there's no one to direct the anger onto.
[deleted]
MichaelGG - 3 hours ago
Versus what? Relying on the goodwill of pharmaceutical
companies? Seeing as this has been going on for a while
but there haven't been lots of airtime about it until
now, I'd say Martin's on the right path.
hellofunk - 2 hours ago
> I'd say Martin's on the right path.Right into prison.
apsec112 - 1 hours ago
Please don't make personal attacks on HN, especially
politically charged ones.
AJRF - 3 hours ago
He raised the price of Daraprim in order to fund R&D to find
alternative treatments as Daraprim caused some nasty side
effects. It was free to any individual who wished to obtain
it, with Martin footing the bill. The side effect of the
price hike was the insurance companies has to pay more, not
individuals. So no, one couldn't argue he hurt a lot of sick
people.
lukaslalinsky - 3 hours ago
Isn't this an extreme example of the core problem why the
US health system is so expensive? Even you are suggesting
that an increased price is fine if it's the insurance
companies paying the money.
frgtpsswrdlame - 3 hours ago
>The side effect of the price hike was the insurance
companies has to pay more, not individuals.I keep seeing
this, don't you realize that those increased insurance
costs are passed on to the people paying for insurance?>He
raised the price of Daraprim in order to fund R&D to find
alternative treatments as Daraprim caused some nasty side
effects.You shouldn't buy into his PR efforts, take a look
at this:Shkreli admitted his company sold the same form of
pyrimethamine, or Daraprim, that had been on the market for
70 years ? although he expressed hope that his company
could develop a more potent form of the drug that did not
hinder the body?s production of folic acid.?The mechanism
of the drug is folate inhibition,? Anandya reminded the
CEO, adding that what Shkreli had proposed might not even
be scientifically possible.?The entire mechanism of the
drug is to stop the production of folic acid in the first
place and the bulk of its side effects are tied up with
that,? Anandya said. ?It?s kind of counter-intuitive to say
that you are going to solve this problem when it?s not a
problem as much as the whole raison d?etre of the drug.
This I find is the main problem with your plan. That the
solution is not worth $749.??One cannot suggest such a
(monstrous) increase in the price of a drug which by your
own admission does nothing better while telling me your
plan is to (because this is the only way it would work)
create an entirely new drug not related to pyrimethamine at
all because it would require a new structure,? the
physician continued. ?Which in turn would give you a big
hassle since you would require testing and FDA approval
from scratch anyway. I think your plan is flawed.?from:
http://www.alternet.org/economy/pharma-bro-martin-shkreli-
ge...
[deleted]
gizmo - 3 hours ago
1. There is no evidence of any R&D efforts. He did "market
research", i.e. finding new drugs to acquire and hike the
price on.2. It was absolutely 100% not free to any
individual who wished to obtain it. If you had no insurance
you might (or might not) get it for free, but if you had
lousy insurance you could get stuck with a 20% copay, which
means you have to pay $18,000 out of pocket -per month-.
Also, hospitals stopped having Daraprim in stock because of
the price hike which means people with acute cases are no
longer able to start treatment immediately.3. If you can't
argue he hurt a lot of sick people, why are doctors and
other healthcare professionals arguing exactly that?I think
you've been drinking the Shkreli cool-aid.
hellofunk - 3 hours ago
> It was free to any individual who wished to obtain it,
with Martin footing the bill.[0] "... it says that the drug
is available for free to people with deep financial need.
But Dr. Aberg has watched her patients have to "jump
through the hoops" to get it. Patients have to prove both
financial need and health status, something that's
difficult to focus on when their lives are in danger. In
June, one of her patients gave up on the process. The
patient switched therapies, only to suffer a negative side
effect."[0] http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/25/news/economy
/daraprim-aids-d...
MichaelGG - 3 hours ago
So in order to save ~100% on a $100,000 treatment, they
have to "jump though the hoops" and prove they need it
(otherwise everyone would just do that?). OK?
hellofunk - 3 hours ago
There's nothing like laying down a thick bureaucratic
obstacle of red-tape on thousands of very sick people
during the key moments of their treatment.
frgtpsswrdlame - 3 hours ago
It wasn't always a $100,000 treatment. Shkreli made it a
$100,000 treatment with the justification being that the
poor could still obtain it for free. But then he puts a
bunch of beauracratic roadblocks in the way and it's
their fault they don't jump through his hoops? For a pill
that costs $1 outside the US and which he made $750? Come
on man.
MichaelGG - 2 hours ago
I'd imagine the roadblocks are there to prevent people
abusing the system. And the rest of the roadblocks are by
the FDA and perhaps CBP, right? Otherwise people could
just import the $1 pills and be fine.If it turns out
Turing was acting malicious and intentionally tried to
block people from getting the medication despite knowing
they were eligible, that's a different story. But I'm
hardly going to take the word of biased medical
professionals on it.Martin put a face to all this,
pointed out a huge flaw in this system and made money
doing it. Then to top it off, he dares to laugh at
everyone in the system about it (like in [1]).If Martin
had just hid behind normal pharma PR, few people would be
outraged, it'd just be general grousing with little
airtime.1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EXsVfiFbp8
frgtpsswrdlame - 2 hours ago
>Martin put a face to all this, pointed out a huge flaw
in this system and made money doing it.Martin did not
"point out a huge flaw", he got caught exploiting a huge
flaw and is narcissistic enough to believe that he could
sell that exploitation as something other than it is. The
sad thing is that because he's "computer nerdy" a bunch
of other "computer nerdy" people have fallen for the
con.>I'd imagine the roadblocks are there to prevent
people abusing the system.He could not have roadblocks
and let the drug be cheap just like it was for decades.
This is on Shkreli.>But I'm hardly going to take the word
of biased medical professionals on it.Medical
professionals are biased but the guy jacking up drug
prices 5000% isn't? We're taking him at face value? pfft.
andrewla - 3 hours ago
To be fair, he was not convicted of that, and it's arguable
whether that entailed committed a crime.The particular crime
that he was charged with and convicted of was
"victimless"-ish. That is, he lied to investors, basically
running a Ponzi scheme (specifically, reporting that their
balance was higher than it actually was to prevent them from
trying to pull out their money), but instead of the usual
deal where the scheme collapses, he managed to make enough
money to make his investors whole.
MichaelGG - 3 hours ago
Is that true? He has repeatedly said that if they are paying
for it directly, he will give it to them for free (or $1 or
so?) -- that the prices were only for insurers. Certainly it
should be easy to find people that got hurt and he denied to
help, right?Also, this is the system's fault for giving a
monopoly on a product to someone. Who knows how many other
medicines are out there existing purely on someone's
kindhearted desire to not make money.
[deleted]
hellofunk - 3 hours ago
[0] "... it says that the drug is available for free to
people with deep financial need. But Dr. Aberg has watched
her patients have to "jump through the hoops" to get it.
Patients have to prove both financial need and health
status, something that's difficult to focus on when their
lives are in danger. In June, one of her patients gave up
on the process. The patient switched therapies, only to
suffer a negative side effect."[0]
http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/25/news/economy/daraprim-
aids-d...
Unbeliever69 - 3 hours ago
And this comment is the reason why Trump was elected
president; that we believe everything we hear without doing
our own due diligence.
hellofunk - 3 hours ago
> that we believe everything we hearSo if I see lots of
stories by doctors who had difficulty getting their
patients the drug even with this program making it
available for "free" I should assume all the doctors are
making that up?
apk-d - 3 hours ago
Are there any actual cases of people saying they can't afford
the drug any more?
hellofunk - 3 hours ago
I've read plenty of reports over the last year of people
who had great difficulty getting the drug, even though it
was supposedly free. I posted one such article elsewhere in
this thread.
pyroinferno - 3 hours ago
You have no clue what this court case was about, do you?
apsec112 - 1 hours ago
"Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an
article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that"
can be shortened to "The article mentions that.""
enraged_camel - 3 hours ago
The court case doesn't have to be about that for the
argument to still hold true.
pyroinferno - 3 hours ago
1. The OP has nothing to do with the price hikes, so your
argument might have been true if it was actually
addressing a relevant topic2. It's even arguable that his
price hikes hurt anyone other than already rich insurance
monopolies. The insurance companies would have had to
cover the prices, and any people without insurance could
have received the drug for free from their company. And
of course the higher profits went into upgrading the
drug.
hellofunk - 3 hours ago
> It's even arguable that his price hikes hurt anyone
other than already rich insurance monopoliesIt is a
uniquely American perspective to assume that insurance
companies are some abstracted layer of infinite money
that individual people needn't worry about. But then,
everyone complains about insurance premiums and they
wonder why they can't be lower. What irony.
pyroinferno - 3 hours ago
You think raising the price for a drug only used by about
2000 people raised insurance premiums at all?It's amazing
how Europeans expect Pharmaceutical companies to invest
R&D into rarely used drugs when they can't make a profit.
PhasmaFelis - 3 hours ago
But that's not why he was convicted, which means his
conviction does nothing to discourage that.
flipp3r - 3 hours ago
This is not true. The drug was given away for free to people
who could not afford it. Are there any cases of what you're
saying actually happening?
hellofunk - 3 hours ago
Tim Horn of the Treatment Action Group and Carlos del Rio
of the HIV Medicine Association, said [Shkreli's] actions
were insufficient, given that patients initially treated
for days at a hospital typically have to continue the
treatment for weeks or months after
leaving.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Shkreli
flipp3r - 3 hours ago
They said "Del Rio noted that while hospitals treat many
patients initially, most are then treated at home for a
couple of months, so the lower hospital price doesn?t
help."This just states that people at home, after being
treated at a hospital, still need the medicine. Hospitals
get 50% off, which is what your unrelated statement is
about.The medicine is a cure, you need to go through
about 100 pills of it. The cost of people at home is paid
by insurance. This has nothing to do with the medicine
being available literally for free if you contact the
company.
hellofunk - 3 hours ago
[0] "... it says that the drug is available for free to
people with deep financial need. But Dr. Aberg has
watched her patients have to "jump through the hoops" to
get it. Patients have to prove both financial need and
health status, something that's difficult to focus on
when their lives are in danger. In June, one of her
patients gave up on the process. The patient switched
therapies, only to suffer a negative side effect."[0]
http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/25/news/economy/daraprim-
aids-d...
flipp3r - 3 hours ago
Well damn
[deleted]
hood_syntax - 3 hours ago
That would be great if he wasn't one of many, and if nothing of
significance will come from this ruling (it won't). He's just a
convenient target that can be pointed to and said of "Look,
aren't we doing our job?" when the truth is nothing will change
in the long run.
ZenoArrow - 3 hours ago
> "That would be great if he wasn't one of many"You could say
the same for almost any crime. Why should those who commit
white-collar crime be allowed to continue without
repercussions, whilst those who commit much smaller offences
get jail time?
Clubber - 2 hours ago
The problem is now Congress can sit back and do nothing for a
few years regarding Pharma, since the masses and media will
be satisfied with this. Nothing changes.
ZenoArrow - 1 hours ago
Correct me if I'm wrong... I thought this particular court
case had very little to do with the pharmaceutical
industry. Also, that's a bit of a stretch. It's not like
the government has a 'white collar crime prosecutions
quota', and the general public doesn't overlook wrongdoing
if similar crimes have been prosecuted recently.
Clubber - 1 hours ago
This case has nothing to do with the pharmaceutical
industry. Shkreli is known to be the "bad boy of Pharma"
and is being taken down. His reputation is based on
hiking the price of his drug. This will make the federal
government look like they are doing something without
actually doing anything. They aren't prosecuting him for
price gouging his drugs and that common practice will not
stop.
pshc - 2 hours ago
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
mindfulplay - 3 hours ago
I don't see anyone riling against the strongarming lobby of the
big fraud pharma. This dude just seems more like a character
from Big Lebowski or The Wire to me than someone say from big
pharma who reaps billions by lobbying for sustaining their own
monopolistic behavior....
defen - 3 hours ago
I'd like someone to do a reading of Martin Shkreli as "satirist of
neoliberalism", and suggest that the reason so many people hate him
so much is that he's a scapegoat for our collective feelings of
guilt. Can anyone offer a valid critique of his raising the price
of Daraprim, within the frame of neoliberalism, that doesn't just
reduce to "that guy's a real jerk!"?
CalChris - 1 hours ago
Before we did that we'd have to agree on what neoliberalism is.
One definition cited by Wikipedia is:> Neoliberal theory argues
that a free market will allow efficiency, economic growth, income
distribution, and technological progress to occur. Any state
intervention to encourage these phenomena will worsen economic
performance.Another is that neoliberalism is the relitigation of
the New Deal.I like the second more operational definition since
it doesn't ignore history.
llcoolv - 2 hours ago
This really reminds me of "The stranger" by Albert Camus.
Unbeliever69 - 1 hours ago
Did the sun get in someone's eyes?
nsnick - 2 hours ago
His mistake was taking money from rich people. If he had stuck to
stealing from and killing poor people, nothing would have happened
to him.
zokier - 3 hours ago
Gotta love the narrative here. Jack up the medicine price and
become americas most hated for a moment by general behavior..
that's fine. Make a fool of couple of hedge fund investors.. oh
boy, now you fucked up
0xbear - 3 hours ago
I think it's fair to say that Shkreli would be left to his own
devices had he not shown the audacity to charge what the market
will bear. Meanwhile another person who similarly jacked up the
price of a lifesaving drug beyond what many could afford, Heather
Bresch, received no negative legal attention whatsoever. Ever
wonder why? Because her dad is Joe Manchin. The swamp needs
draining so bad.
paulgb - 3 hours ago
Bumping the price of a drug is not illegal. Shkreli was found
guilty for fraud unrelated to the drug price hike.
0xbear - 2 hours ago
Did I say otherwise? Is there any doubt in your mind as to why
they went after him though? How many other hedge fund managers
do you know of that have ever seen the inside of a jail cell?
singhrac - 2 hours ago
Lots! Raj Rajaratnam, Gabriel & Marco Bitran, Florian Homm,
Paul Moore IV, Michael Murphy, Jeffrey Toft, Chad Sloat,
etc.I admit to knowing none of the details in any of these
cases, I just googled "hedge fund managers in jail".
[deleted]
ringaroundthetx - 1 hours ago
In the federal venue, can he appeal the securities counts in
isolation of the things he was found not guilty of?Conspiracy
charges are always weak, if you can afford a constitutional law to
argue on expression grounds.Has he expressed interest in appealing?
[deleted]
roel_v - 3 hours ago
So, are the gonna sell off his stuff and more in particular, is the
Wu Tang album coming up for sale?
sp527 - 3 hours ago
The government and media couldn't have asked for a better outcome.
The actual criminals on Wall Street and in Big Pharma, who had the
foresight to line the right pockets, go ignored and the outsider
who drew the ire of the public - for a decidedly amoral business
decision with poor optics - is very publicly castigated. It's a win
all around for a monumentally corrupt establishment, which has once
again deferred meaningful scrutiny.Shkreli made the mistake of
setting himself up as the perfect loudmouthed, flamboyant patsy.
jjxw - 3 hours ago
There seems to be a misconception regarding what Shkreli was found
guilty of. The legal case here has very little to do with the
pharmaceutical pricing controversy - it is a separate case based on
a separate hedge fund that he managed. The gist of it is that he
took people's money to start a hedge fund, lied to investors that
the fund was doing fine when the hedge fund went belly up, but
ended up returning everyone's money plus a sizable return when his
separate pharmaceutical venture went well.When fraud happens those
affected don't usually get their money back much less a return on
that money. However, it's pretty clear what he did is also fraud
(false documents, not returning people's money when they asked for
it) even if the fact that investors came out better makes the
plaintiffs less sympathetic.
emodendroket - 3 hours ago
Well, that's true, but the article seems to suggest that his
brash persona/public conduct made it hard for him to win the
case.
austenallred - 3 hours ago
In a jury trial that would absolutely sway things
charlesdm - 3 hours ago
Which, all things considering, is ridiculous. People
shouldn't be able to be convicted because they're assholes
(even if they are).I don't live in the US, but being
convicted by a "jury of your peers" is frankly, ridiculous.
When has the average person been able to grasp complex
matters relating to say, securities fraud? Most people aren't
even able to stay out of debt.A panel of judges with
specialised experience often makes a lot more sense than a
jury.Edit: and for those voting me down, at least explain why
you don't agree.
anigbrowl - 53 minutes ago
A jury trial is a privilege which defendants can choose to
waive.
dclowd9901 - 2 hours ago
Except, of course, this has a natural side-effect of
incentivizing people to not be assholes.
[deleted]
coldtea - 47 minutes ago
>Which, all things considering, is ridiculous. People
shouldn't be able to be convicted because they're assholes
(even if they are).Why not? This is basically what the law
does as well: codifies what society considers punishable
assholery (e.g. murdering people or stealing or etc...).So
convicting him because he has been as asshole (even if it's
in an unrelated case) is not that different to convicting
him for being guilt on this or that legally defined
behavior -- it's just not written down in a law book.
lr4444lr - 2 hours ago
Agreed, but I question how smart Shkreli could be if he did
not opt for a bench trial given his reputation.
sliverstorm - 2 hours ago
Whether it's right or wrong, you don't earn the benefit of
the doubt in tenuous cases by being a huge asshole.
[deleted]
chrischen - 2 hours ago
People can?t grasp complex matters and lawyers specifically
choose the least intelligent easiest to sway and manipulate
people to serve on juries.
dgacmu - 1 hours ago
That's the kind of claim for which it's useful to have a
citation. Because it's not generally true. This is an
old study ('76), but they found that the jury selection
processes biases against both high and low educational
attainment, for example: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30
53202?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con...One of my friends just
served on the jury for a murder trial. He's got a Ph.D..
From my recollection, at least two of the other jurors
also had postgraduate degrees.Remember that the jury
selection process is managed jointly -- which somewhat
naturally leads to the clipping off of people at either
end of the extremes that the defense and prosecution are
concerned about.
65827 - 42 minutes ago
A study from 1976 might as well be from 976, we still ate
humans and worshipped star gods back then.
dgacmu - 31 minutes ago
Even worse, Star Wars was 1977... In 1976, we were still
worshiping Rocky Balboa!
emodendroket - 2 hours ago
Then I guess it is fortunate that neither the defense nor
the prosecution get to just select whichever jurors they
want without input from the other side.
austenallred - 3 hours ago
You're not wrong. Humans are fallible and thus so are jury
trials.
emodendroket - 3 hours ago
But judges are infallible and thus so are bench trials?
austenallred - 2 hours ago
Um no one said or even implied either of those things
emodendroket - 2 hours ago
It does seem to be implied if you are invoking human
fallibility to bolster an argument that jury trials are
bad.
austenallred - 2 hours ago
How does jury trials being imperfect imply that bench
trials are perfect? A being true does not mean B is
false...
emodendroket - 2 hours ago
The OP was saying that bench trials are much better, not
just that jury trials are flawed.
austenallred - 2 hours ago
better != perfect
emodendroket - 2 hours ago
OK, so the argument is that regular people are... more
fallible than a judge? I don't understand what you want
to say at this point.
Clubber - 2 hours ago
Judges are either appointed or elected, both equates to
judges being political creatures.
emodendroket - 2 hours ago
It's a rhetorical question.
[deleted]
elliotec - 3 hours ago
It's a check/balance against state power, i.e. the judicial
system. Many countries have used this method for centuries.
It's not ridiculous because the idea is that (the diverse
selection of) your peers are equal to you in most ways, so
are able to fairly judge you. A judge still has a lot of
power and usually ultimately the decision goes to them as
far as sentencing etc.
charlesdm - 2 hours ago
Right. But thing is, they are not actually equal on
specialised matters? I understand that it works when
you're dealing with things like murder. That can be
relatively clear.But how about hacking? Securities fraud?
Money laundering? Tax fraud? These are all highly
specialised issues that the average person knows nothing
about. No average person, unless they have an interest in
it, will be able to make a good call on such a case.
emodendroket - 2 hours ago
The judge/jury distinction is basically orthogonal.
Judges who hear a case are not necessarily experts. And
by the same token, one could easily imagine a system
where a jury had to be composed of experts in the field.
I'm not convinced that would be a good thing to do,
though.
_delirium - 2 hours ago
There is a significant role for judges in trials as well,
especially on complex technical issues. It's up to the
judge to decide all "matters of law", for example which
conduct would (if it happened) violate a law and which
wouldn't. A judge can even throw out the indictment
entirely, finding a defendant innocent as a matter of
law, if they determine that the conduct alleged isn't
actually a violation of any laws, even if it did happen.
In complex fraud cases indictments being thrown out (or
overturned on appeal) by judges isn't all that uncommon
either.Where it goes to a jury is when there's a dispute
of fact rather than law: the judge has determined that
whether the defendant violated the law or not depends on
a fact disputed between the prosecution and the defense
(e.g. whether the defendant actually did or didn't do
something, or what the defendant's intent was). The jury
then decides whether the facts support conviction,
although even then they're typically guided by very
specific instructions from the judge about what they
would have to find in order to convict.
nprog - 6 minutes ago
You can always request a bench trial (which must be
approved by the prosecutor), and you probably should for
any sufficiently complex matter, where bench trials have
a 55% acquittal rate vs 80-something % for jury trials
(if someone wants a source, I'll try to find it; these
figures came from a study). Jury trials work when there
are emotional and subjective aspects, especially around
intent. The jury in Shkreli returned to the judge for a
formal definition of fraudulent intent, and then he was
not convicted on wire fraud, meaning that they didn't
find for specific intent. If the jury was not properly
instructed on the elements of the crime and the issue was
raised, it may be a reversible error and I'm anxious to
see how the appeal is argued.
elliotec - 2 hours ago
Sure, the point is there is no perfect system. This is
just the best we've been able to come up with over a few
millennia, and no we don't execute wonderfully and
certainly our voting/jury population is full of
interesting ideals, but it's what we have and it's
_mostly_ worked over time. I'm not sure where you are but
I'm curious to know of other systems considered "better"
charlesdm - 2 hours ago
I?m based in Belgium. Definitely not perfect, but
different countries use different systems. In general,
juries are only used when dealing with murder cases. All
other issues are ruled upon directly by judges, who makes
a direct interpretation of the law. If you?re dealing
with a tax case, you will generally be assigned a judge
somewhat familiar with tax law. Same if you?re dealing
with a contract or a commercial issue, etc.One can expect
any judge to be an individual with above average
intellectual ability.
xrange - 2 hours ago
Just some clarification for those readers not in the
U.S.. You as the defendant do not have to select have
your case tried by a jury. You can select to have a
bench trial instead. There is a presumption of innocence
for the defendant, so the prosecutor has to show "beyond
a reasonable doubt" that the defendant committed the
crime in question. Juries find defendants not guilty more
often then judges do. So if you want a society that
better reflects the maxim, "better 10 guilty men go free,
than 1 innocent man go to prison", then juries are
empirically better.http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/courtrv/cr43-2/
CR43-2Bornstein.pdf
true_religion - 1 hours ago
Even if you ask for a bench trial, the state can request
a jury trial on your behalf since the presumption in law
is that juries are objectively better.
wfo - 2 hours ago
These things can be (and are) explained. Trials that
contain complex technical violations tend to take longer,
sure. Judges, expert witnesses, lawyers all spend a huge
amount of time learning about/explaining these issues.
It's especially incumbent upon the prosecutor to explain
complicated issues -- if the jury can't understand
someone's guilt, they are less likely to consider someone
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is very, very
good: it sets the bar higher for conviction, and it
encourages the state to, if it wants to convict, make
simpler clearer laws. Complex morasses of
incomprehensible laws are not necessary and only serve
the interests of those who can pay to create or avoid
them.Also, none of these subjects are so difficult and
complicated ordinary people cannot understand them. I've
never heard of a trial requiring any real deep knowledge,
like requiring jurors to have a serious understanding
algebraic geometry or quantum mechanics or phenomenology.
Hacking can be explained to ordinary people. People are
not dumb. People do their own taxes and understand taxes.
Trained professionals are not elite superheroes who are
the only ones who can understand the world well enough to
understand the difference between right and wrong.
Untrained people can't do a professional's job, but they
can definitely (with some help and background) tell when
a professional has committed a crime. This case is easily
understandable. I'm not a securities expert but I can
make a fine assessment here just from reading an article,
even without hours and hours of doing nothing but
learning about the specific case and law (which is what
jurors get); we all know what fraud is.
charlesdm - 1 hours ago
Honestly, aren't you underestimating your own
intelligence?Plenty of things can be simplified for non
professionals, but the nuance of certain topics is then
often lost. A single word in a written law can matter a
lot.No disrespect to anyone, but can an average career
teacher understand the nuances of securities law? Can
(s)he understand the actual difference between tax
avoidance and tax evasion? Some can, absolutely. Others
definitely can't and are operating way out of their
league.Lawyers and prosecutors are great at creating
stories, but isn't what matters or not whether the law
has been broken?As an example; I had a tax issue
(different interpretation of a certain law) but retained
an amazing tax lawyer. He was _great_. The way they
juggle the story around without lying, yet drawing the
line very close, is amazing. Based on personal
experience, I just don't think it can work without
subject experts.Amazing charismatic lawyers (or
prosecutors) will be able to bend an outcome, and that is
just not right.
wfo - 1 hours ago
>No disrespect to anyone, but can an average career
teacher understand the nuances of securities law?Yes they
can, that's exactly the position I outlined. After a week
of doing nothing but learning about securities law every
teacher I've met is capable of this no problem. Teachers
are perhaps a bad example here though, they are highly
educated (many have masters' degrees, most have
bachelors) and interested in learning. But to make your
argument stronger, take a minimum wage fast food worker
with a GED, yes I think they are capable as well.>Lawyers
and prosecutors are great at creating stories, but isn't
what matters or not whether the law has been broken?Kind
of. In fact in the US legal system this is not all that
matters, because the law is often vague and abstract and
sometimes obviously morally wrong. The purpose of the
jury is exactly this, it's a check on a cold soulless
system destroying lives robotically; not only must a law
be broken, but you also have to convince a group of
fairly normal human beings that what you've done is
horrible enough you deserve to be punished for it before
you are punished.>Amazing charismatic lawyers (or
prosecutors) will be able to bend an outcome, and that is
just not right.I agree with you here, and this
essentially means the rich get away with things the poor
are punished for. This will always happen, will it not?
People who are able to present a more convincing argument
in their defense are less likely to be convicted in any
legal system? I think things can be done to mitigate
this, yes, and they start with a simpler criminal code
(fewer crimes) and more equal access to legal talent,
like better funded public defenders.
emodendroket - 3 hours ago
Relying exclusively on bench trials seems unappealing to me
(and I guess to James Madison, who enshrined the right of
trial by jury in the Constitution) because it creates a
much easier environment for an arbitrary court system to
throw people in jail who are innocent and removes other
protections like jury nullification. You could look at
Japan, which tried to solve its problem of innocent people
going to jail by introducing a lay-judge system (kind of
like jurors who can ask questions during the trial), for a
real-life example of some of the problems you might
have.Clearly the US system is far from perfect but I don't
think getting rid of juries would make it better.Also, in
practice, judges make rulings on things outside their
expertise too.
jliptzin - 2 hours ago
I think at the very least there should be some kind of
juror training process. You'd still tap people from the
general public, but these people could maybe serve up to
5 year terms where being a juror is their full time job
for that time period, they're trained in advance, they go
through some kind of testing period, maybe shadow a
couple other juries, and then they go on to serve on real
juries. Obviously this would be a paid position much like
a postal employee.
emodendroket - 2 hours ago
Besides being extremely disruptive to jurors' lives, you
also have many of the same problems of an all-judge
system (people becoming too close to prosecutors and
wanting to the rule the "right" way, etc.) without the
mitigation provided by the bar and full legal training.
zo1 - 51 minutes ago
Seemingly free and "just" governments have done much more
"disruptive" things in the past, so there is precedent.
E.g. Conscription and mandatory military training.Edit:
Typo.
watwut - 2 hours ago
"because it creates a much easier environment for an
arbitrary court system to throw people in jail who are
innocent and removes other protections like jury
nullification. You could look at Japan, which tried to
solve its problem of innocent people going to jail by
introducing a lay-judge system (kind of like jurors who
can ask questions during the trial), for a real-life
example of some of the problems you might
have."Practically, united states of america have biggest
incarceration rate in the world, one of the most
expensive legal systems (if not most expensive) and quite
long sentences compared to other western countries. Jury
nullification is basically never used and majority of
jury members don't know about it.I am not saying that
other countries have flawless awesome court system,
definitely not. But I have yet to read something that
would convince me that jury is better or at least worth
additional expenses.
JackFr - 2 hours ago
Juries convict, but judges sentence. The incarceration
rate is high because of strict sentencing guidelines
written in the law and voters electing tough-on-crime
judges. Eliminating jury trials would change none of
that.
protomyth - 1 hours ago
and Legislatures legislate. The strict sentencing
guidelines are the result of "Law and Order" laws (both
sides of American politics have their favorite targets).
I too agree, eliminating jury trials would change none of
that.
emodendroket - 2 hours ago
And you think getting rid of juries would help, or at
least not make things worse? One of the reasons it's so
high is that most cases are resolved as part of the plea
system and never go to trial.
charlesdm - 2 hours ago
Isn't the main issue with a jury that is inherently
unpredictable, and some people would prefer taking a
decent plea over a bad verdict? People that aren't guilty
shouldn't be forced to take a plea because the
alternative could be worse. That is just wrong in every
single way.
emodendroket - 2 hours ago
I agree that the use of plea bargains in the system today
is deeply troubling. But getting rid of juries doesn't
help. You still have a situation where the prosecutor can
tell you your choices are going to jail for two years or
taking your chances in court and maybe going away for
decades, and you still have the inadequacies of the
public defender system. The jury system is one of the
parts of the system least in need of reform.
watwut - 2 hours ago
Which happens because of power prosecutors have (ability
to decide charge which makes all the difference - plea
can make difference between a year and risk of 30 years
in prison) which has little to do with jury vs judge.
Majority of defendants deciding that they don't want to
risk (or cant afford) a day in court is not an argument
for that system.
emodendroket - 2 hours ago
It is a refutation of the argument that juries are bad
because the US has a lot of people in jail, though.
watwut - 1 hours ago
His argument was that juries prevent "arbitrary court
system to throw people in jail who are innocent and
removes other protections like jury nullification". There
is nothing observable that would confirm that.They don't
do that, they prevent pretty much nothing.
wfo - 2 hours ago
You're right the US has a huge incarceration rate, but
jury trials have nothing to do with this, since in the US
trials functionally do not exist. I don't remember the
numbers exactly (and they are changing and they differ by
state/federal) but something like 1-5% of people thrown
in jail actually go to trial.
chki - 1 hours ago
But wouldn't the fact that trials might be favoring
conviction (I'm not saying they do, but just as a
hypothesis) also drastically change the outcome of those
non-trial cases (mainly plea bargains, I guess)? If I
expect to be convicted, I'm more likely to agree to a
worse plea bargain.
smsm42 - 2 hours ago
The rate in not because of juries (most cases end up in
guilty pleas anyway). It is 90% war on drugs and 10%
"tough on crime" mentality which emphasizes punitive
aspects and produces thing like mandatory minimal
sentences which do not allow to treat things on by case
basis. But mostly it's war on drugs.
watwut - 3 hours ago
This is one of those cases where those doing downvoting
really should explain why they downvote.I personally agree
with following:* Defendant being dick or unpleasant should
not affect guilty/not guilty verdict in fair justice
system.* Defendant being charismatic or seemingly
intelligent should not affect guilty/not guilty verdict in
fair justice system either.* A panel of judges with
specialised experience often makes a lot more sense than a
jury.
sampo - 1 hours ago
> A panel of judges with specialised experience often makes
a lot more sense than a jury.This would make sense in a
country where trust in authorities is high, and people
generally believe that the judges and the justice system is
impartial and fair, without too much personal and hidden
agendas.But in a country where the trust in the system is
lower, a jury of peers provides a safety mechanism so that
the justice system cannot diverge too far from the point of
view of the "common man".
JackFr - 2 hours ago
> People shouldn't be able to be convicted because they're
assholes (even if they are).He wasn't convicted because he
was an asshole. He was convicted because he broke the law.
I think the fact that he was acquitted on 2 of the 5 counts
is evidence that the jury made a determination based on
facts, rather than their feeling towards him.That being
said, in a trial in the US, the judge applies the law, and
the jury determines the facts, especially as they pertain
to the credibility of testimony. If the defendant is an
outrageous asshole, it's possibly more likely that the jury
would interpret inconclusive evidence less favorably. I
don't think that's necessarily the worst thing in the
world, and it's also not clear that a panel of judges
wouldn't be subject to similar biases.
SilasX - 1 hours ago
>He wasn't convicted because he was an asshole. He was
convicted because he broke the law.Well, yes and no.
They only bothered looking for his other crimes and
prosecuting his because he became unpopular. That's
disturbing.What if I'm the victim of financial crimes by
someone who didn't piss of Congress and the public?
Where's my justice?
andrewflnr - 1 hours ago
The judicial system mostly prosecutes people who have not
managed to piss off Congress and the public.
SilasX - 1 hours ago
The point is that the bad reasons disproportionately
affect their decision of which cases to pursue.
jjxw - 3 hours ago
There was a joke floating around somewhere (Matt Levine I
think?) that one strategy to avoid a jury trial proceeding was
to become so publicly infamous that it would be impossible to
select an unbiased jury. Clearly didn't work out for Shkreli in
this case.
IshKebab - 2 hours ago
Nah that's stupid. It might delay your trial but do you
really think they would just say "oh ok we won't bother"? Of
course not - they'd just go ahead with the least biased jury
they could find.
vumgl - 1 hours ago
It may take a very long time to find an impartial jury if
the Trump impeachment goes to trial.
dragonwriter - 1 hours ago
You mean, if criminal charges against Trump go to trial,
which is far less likely than impeachment (which is tried
by the Senate and has no requirement for impartiality)
going to trial.
taejo - 1 hours ago
Impeachments are tried by the Senate. We know where to
find them, whether they're impartial or not.
eyeownyde - 2 hours ago
Probably why it's a joke.
BartSaM - 2 hours ago
The issue with this is that I often think of a people, that
are not following media (so would not know him at all), to be
usually more on a conservative note with strong values. If
such a people would meet Shkreli, they would send him
straight to the jail.
tanderson92 - 3 hours ago
Yes, matt levine. Curious what his thoughts are on this case
on Monday.
Overtonwindow - 2 hours ago
Matt Levine is an excellent read. Even for those without a
finance background he makes it easy to understand. Would
make an exceptional professor.
jacquesm - 2 hours ago
Well, that and he actually was guilty. Just like being nice
shouldn't be enough to get you off the hook when you're
guilty being an asshole shouldn't be enough to get you to be
declared guilty when you're not. In this case the system
simply worked as it was designed to.
whipoodle - 2 hours ago
Yeah, that is definitely fraud. Though as a fraud victim you
can't really ask for a better outcome.
bsder - 1 hours ago
This problem was that the fraud wasn't big enough that he had
powerful enough people in his pocket.If you owe the bank $1
million, the bank owns you. If you owe the bank $1 billion, you
own the bank.They only convict the Martin Shkreli's and the
Martha Stewart's. The people with real money are completely
safe.
[deleted]
bdcravens - 3 hours ago
Similar to OJ's recent parole that had nothing to do with the
murder he was accused of committing. MSM, the previous victim's
families, etc, seem to be conflating the two.
CobrastanJorji - 2 hours ago
That's different, though. The goal of a parole suitability
hearing is to determine whether an inmate poses an unreasonable
risk of danger to society if released from prison. A data point
like "this prisoner murdered some people" is very relevant to
that determination.
artursapek - 1 hours ago
Not that I think OJ is innocent, but that can't be treated as
a "data point"; based on public record he did not murder
anyone.
vkou - 2 hours ago
OJ's parole was fair, and done by the book. OJ's sentencing
for the armed robbery (30 years - his friends who brought the
guns, and had a number of prior felonies all got probation)
unfairly reflected his murder trial. The judge and jury were
almost certainly out to get him.
downandout - 2 hours ago
>When fraud happens those affected don't usually get their money
back much less a return on that money.That will be a footnote at
sentencing. Federal sentencing is generally based on intended or
actual loss, whichever is greater. Further, the judge is allowed
to take into account intended losses from his entire course of
conduct, not just the intended losses from the specific counts on
which he was found guilty.In other words, the fact that his
investors lost no actual money will have little bearing on his
sentence. I don't know what the actual amount he took in was,
but he will be sentenced for a multimillion dollar fraud scheme,
and because he went to trial and lost, he'll get nowhere near the
minimum. The government likes to punish people for making them
expend the time and effort of a trial (in 2012, 97% of federal
cases ended with a guilty plea instead of a trial [1]). He's
probably looking at 5 years at best.[1]
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443589304577637...
matt_wulfeck - 50 minutes ago
> The government likes to punish people for making them expend
the time and effort of a trialWhile I understand why this is
true, I hate it about our legal system. If you're not guilty
then you shouldn't be coerced into a plea because of the
draconian maximum punishment they hold over your head.This is
evident nowhere more clearly than drug convictions, where they
can lock you up for the rest of your life because you're doing
something they don't like.
ams6110 - 5 minutes ago
Prosecutors don't charge people if they aren't fairly
confident that the evidence will result in a conviction.
However they will also be willing to bargain for a plea to
save the effort and expense of a trial. This lets them get
more cases through the system in less time. They (or the
police) might also try to pressure a suspect to confess, just
to see if he will. That saves them even more time.So bottom
line, you should never admit or confess to anything. If the
prosecutor has enough evidence, he'll probably start with an
offer of a plea deal. If his evidence is marginal, he might
try to get a plea but likely won't bring charges if he thinks
his chances in court are iffy.If you go to trial anyway, in
the face of strong evidence against you, then you've probably
lost your chance at a light sentence, modulo how good a
defense you can afford.
literallycancer - 16 minutes ago
It's probably even simpler - the conviction is the
deliverable produced by a prosecutor, and the thing that
moves their career forward. So they are incentivized to
always go for the harshest possible punishment, in the same
fashion that a company chooses profits over everything
else.The system isn't malicious, it's just not designed to
counteract this sort of thing.
artursapek - 1 hours ago
It will be interesting to see the sentence. He definitely seems
to disagree with you:
https://twitter.com/SamTheManTP/status/893552820548403201Q: How
much time do you likely face?Shkreli: Uh I'm guessing none on
the short side 6 months long side
downandout - 46 minutes ago
I could see that he was expecting something like that based
upon his press conference outside the courthouse. I think
he's in for a very rude introduction to the concept of
"intended loss" and the federal sentencing system in general.
turc1656 - 1 hours ago
I disagree. I think it will be a major factor at sentencing.
First the fact that he did give them their money (with a
significant return on it) back to the people well before the
government got involved (meaning it wasn't a PR show) to me
means there was never any intent for them to actually lose
money. I think the judge will see it the same way. Because if
that weren't true, he would never have repatriated the money
back to pay them out. He would have just said "oops, I lost
it" and continued about his regular business. As much as I
dislike the guy, I do believe he didn't want to rip the people
off, he wanted to try to salvage what he could to make himself
look good get them their money. He just chose a deceptive,
illegal manner in which to do it.Also, harm/damage is a big
consideration in sentencing. He broke the law, yes. But
usually a violation of the law in this regard results in
substantial losses. Because it did not here, the only damage
is his violation of his contractual obligation to provide money
back to those who said they wanted to cash out. By holding the
money, he deprived them of their rightful property as per the
contract they signed when they invested with him. And
considering they would have a real hard time beating his
returns, proving any sort of tort injury is essentially
impossible. This leaves only the statutory violation, meaning
he amazingly didn't necessarily harm anyone or their property
but rather just broke the law. Given the lack of injury to the
victims of his crime, I think he's likely to see a very light
sentence.
[deleted]
lend000 - 33 minutes ago
> Also, harm/damage is a big consideration in
sentencing.That's how it should be. However, if that were
really the case, poor Ross wouldn't be serving two life
sentences.
artemisyna - 1 hours ago
If you don't mine me asking, are you actually a lawyer or are
you just speculating?
turc1656 - 36 minutes ago
Definitely not a lawyer. Total speculation on my part.I am
just trying to come to some sort of logical conclusion
about how the judge might approach sentencing, using my
limiting knowledge of law.
downandout - 1 hours ago
Let me start by saying that what you are saying probably
should be the way it plays out in this case. Everyone seems
to have made money. I was just stating how it actually plays
out in the vast majority of federal cases, and will likely
play out here.In this case, because of the amount involved,
the guidelines will call for a substantial prison sentence
(well over 5 years). There is actually a loss table (again,
we're talking about the "intended loss") that determines a
certain number of points for the loss [1] (plus 7 points for
the "base offense level"), and that number of points is then
used with the sentencing table [2] to determine the sentence.
The judge is of course free to depart up or down from the
guideline sentence, but the sentencing range determined by
those tables will be the starting point. The odds that he
will receive no prison time at all after having gone to trial
and lost are effectively zero. The judge will likely cut him
some kind of break because nobody actually lost anything -
his lawyers will argue that he showed remorse after the fact
by eventually making his victims whole - but that will have a
minor effect at best. My best guess, having watched many of
these things play out, is 4-6 years.[1]
https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2016-guidelines-
manual/2016-...[2] https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2016
-guidelines-manual/2016-...
lomnakkus - 30 minutes ago
> Everyone seems to have made money.This is extremely
interesting phrasing. I assume that by 'everyone' you mean
all the parties to the case? Were there other parties who
lost, perhaps the public?(FWIW, I'm glad to hear that this
vile person is hopefully actually going to be punished for
his sheer vileness -- beyond a wrist slap -- albeit for the
"wrong reason". Perhaps that makes me a bad person.)
cloakandswagger - 7 minutes ago
>Perhaps that makes me a bad person.Not bad, merely
ignorant. You're celebrating the incarceration of someone
you presumably know very little about, all while
searching for "true" victims ("perhaps the public?") to
fuel your indignation.
turc1656 - 27 minutes ago
Very interesting. I certainly hope he gets more time than
I am expecting. Personally, my gut is saying 1-2 years.
I'd be happy if he gets 4-6 like you expect.Definitely
going to be interesting to hear the judges words during
sentencing. I was listening to the Michelle Carter
sentencing yesterday, as I was following that relatively
closely. Now I'm waiting to see what happens here, but
this is much more cut and dry than that case. I'm only
interested because it's Shkreli.
dragonwriter - 1 hours ago
> In other words, the fact that his investors lost no actual
money will have little bearing on his sentenceAFAICT, the
Retrophin investors lost actual money. The losses came out of
gains and reduced them, and they still had net gains from
Retrophin, but they lost money to the fraud.
ThrustVectoring - 58 minutes ago
Isn't Mr. Shkreli one of those Retrophin investors, too?
Like, he could have made his defrauded hedge fund clients
whole out of his stake in Retorphin, rather than from
Retrophin as a whole.
dragonwriter - 1 hours ago
> When fraud happens those affected don't usually get their money
back much less a return on that money.He defrauded and stole
money from the investors in the pharma company to repay the
people he defrauded and stole money from in the hedge funds. The
one set of victims getting a return only happened by stealing
returns belonging to the other set of victims.> However, it's
pretty clear what he did is also fraud (false documents, not
returning people's money when they asked for it) even if the fact
that investors came out better makes the plaintiffs less
sympathetic.Criminal cases have separate prosecution and victims,
but not plaintiffs. It's the victims (well, one of two sets of
them) that are potentially less sympathetic for the reason you
describe.
oh_sigh - 39 minutes ago
> He defrauded and stole money from the investors in the pharma
company to repay the people he defrauded and stole money from
in the hedge funds. The one set of victims getting a return
only happened by stealing returns belonging to the other set of
victims.That is not at all what I read. It seemed like he
personally made a lot of money from his pharma business, and
used that to repay the investors of the fund?Can you please
source your statement?
petrikapu - 1 hours ago
I hope he gets HIV in prison
boskonyc - 22 minutes ago
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2017/08/04/martin-shkreli-on-verd...
aphextron - 2 hours ago
>?Rarely has a white-collar criminal defendant evoked hatred and
scorn from public in the way Shkreli has. Shkreli?s willingness to
lie, step on people, flaunt his wealth and look down on others made
him a villain that many wanted to see go down in flames,? said
James Goodnow, an attorney with Fennemore Craig, a corporate
defense firm.This attitude is just disgusting, and indicative of
precisely what has gone wrong with our society. "White collar"
criminals who steal millions are deserving of leniency and mercy.
But the "thug" who stole $20 from a 7/11 deserves 20 years.
grizzles - 3 hours ago
I find it hard to believe that he got a fair trial this time
around. He was already tried and found guilty in a trial by media a
few years back. This investigation & prosecution are a direct
result of his legal actions that didn't play well politically. BOTH
presidential candidates condemned him. To me it's sad. The
sacrificial lambing of Shkreli instead of lawmakers addressing the
underlying problem of costly pharma is probably the most Venezuela
thing I've ever seen happen in the US. They made the system, he's
just trying to prosper ffs.
norikki - 3 hours ago
Can we please have a conversation on the abuse of Federal plea
bargains and insanely high sentencing guidelines? Thousands of
Americans every year plead guilty in federal court to crimes they
did not commit because they face insanely high prison terms if
convicted. Often Federal sentences are several times longer than
ones in state courts for the exact same crimes.
samgranieri - 1 hours ago
lol