And I will highlight the part I'd been most interested in: whether he could run a social media feed, or a blog (like this one!) -- to critique pharma or life science companies. He cannot. As a felon, and a civil monopolist, he's now lost that right.
And that is in addition to his not being able to try to "work through others" in the life sciences. He may work for a firm that earns less than ten per cent of its world wide revenue in the life sciences, though. [Which probably even excludes CVS, as it has its own house brand OTC and prescription drugs for sale, in the retail outlets.] It should be noted that I think it has been a century or more, since such an order was entered regarding the life sciences industry. His violations were that clear-cut.
These are real consequences -- and this is. . . at long last. . . justice. This is quoted from the ten page memo opinion in blue below, but here is the nine page order enjoining him (drafts of which were posted in prior blog entries here), as well:
. . .Objecting that one of the prohibitions in the injunction is vague and violates his First Amendment rights, Shkreli questions whether he would be prohibited from using a blog to discuss the pharmaceutical industry by the bar against him taking any action to influence the management of a Pharmaceutical Company. This provision is not vague. It bars him from taking actions to influence the management of a Pharmaceutical Company even through publicly issued statements. While First Amendment rights are deserving of great protection, Shkreli’s violations of the antitrust laws have lost for him the right to speak publicly about the pharmaceutical industry when such speech is uttered to influence the management or business of a Pharmaceutical Company. See Peregrine, 89 F.3d at 51 (finding that an injunction restraining the defendant from communicating with the management of a joint venture from which she was also enjoined from being involved was not overbroad).
To further respond to Shkreli’s objection, the following clause will be added to provision II.D.: Shkreli’s public statements about a Pharmaceutical Company will be deemed an action taken to influence or control the management or business of any Pharmaceutical Company if Shkreli intended the statement to have that effect or if a reasonable person would conclude that the statement has that effect. . . .
So it goes. We won't hear any of his unhinged diatribes, to the extent that he means to have any company. . . do much of anything, really.
Nice. Yes, that is a very fine powder, he's been ground into.
It will be upheld on appeal -- because of course the lawyers on Team Martin will... appeal.
Onward, grinning at the sunset, in the steel and glass canyons... its been a minute since I'd last seen this gorgeous fading light show. Out.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment