Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Scotus Blog)   "Your Honor, we ask for declaratory judgement that due to our control of the spice, we be deemed to be in control of the universe"   (scotusblog.com) divider line
    More: Amusing, SCOTUSblog, Manufacturers of America, United States, pharmaceutical research, friend of the courts  
•       •       •

7437 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Dec 2013 at 1:18 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



45 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-14 12:06:56 PM  
When I submit threads with this type of headline the modmins are all:

img.pandawhale.comView Full Size
 
2013-12-14 01:24:10 PM  
From TFA:
Issue: (1) Whether a conclusion about the meaning of scientific data, one on which scientists may reasonably disagree, satisfies the element of a "false or fraudulent" statement under the wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343; and (2) whether applying 18 U.S.C. § 1343 to scientific conclusions drawn from accurate data violates the First Amendment's proscription against viewpoint discrimination, or renders the statute, as applied, unconstitutionally vague.

Please tell me I'm misreading that. Did somebody seriously get accused of fraud for a scientific opinion?
 
2013-12-14 01:26:39 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: When I submit threads with this type of headline the modmins are all:

[img.pandawhale.com image 500x190]


They can kill with a word.
 
2013-12-14 01:27:04 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: When I submit threads with this type of headline the modmins are all:

[img.pandawhale.com image 500x190]


I know right. I can't believe they linked to a SCOTUSblog case listing. It's not even a news article and I have no clue as to how the headline relates to the article without reading the briefs, which is way to much work on a Saturday morning.
 
2013-12-14 01:30:12 PM  
And can we get you to expand Lawrence v. Texas to include buggering dead Paul-Atreides lookalikes?
 
2013-12-14 01:30:27 PM  

worlddan: Because People in power are Stupid: When I submit threads with this type of headline the modmins are all:

[img.pandawhale.com image 500x190]

I know right. I can't believe they linked to a SCOTUSblog case listing. It's not even a news article and I have no clue as to how the headline relates to the article without reading the briefs, which is way to much work on a Saturday morning.


The plaintiff is Harkonen.  I'm pretty sure that's the only connection to the headline, and so reading the briefs won't add anything in that regard.
 
2013-12-14 01:31:00 PM  

Fabric_Man: Please tell me I'm misreading that. Did somebody seriously get accused of fraud for a scientific opinion?


According to this blog entry hosted on Santford's law blog, Dr. Harkonen took results that should not have been considered statistically significant, and claimed they were for the express purpose of defrauding investors.
 
2013-12-14 01:31:23 PM  
Sounds like some kind of Fox News issue. You know, like having their so called "scientist" shrills claiming "they is no global warming!"
 
2013-12-14 01:32:55 PM  
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
 
2013-12-14 01:34:26 PM  
Subby , you worm. What chew think you doin'?
 
2013-12-14 01:35:43 PM  

drumhellar: Fabric_Man: Please tell me I'm misreading that. Did somebody seriously get accused of fraud for a scientific opinion?

According to this blog entry hosted on Santford's law blog, Dr. Harkonen took results that should not have been considered statistically significant, and claimed they were for the express purpose of defrauding investors.


And he is the CEO of the company
 
2013-12-14 01:39:39 PM  

Fabric_Man: From TFA:
Issue: (1) Whether a conclusion about the meaning of scientific data, one on which scientists may reasonably disagree, satisfies the element of a "false or fraudulent" statement under the wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343; and (2) whether applying 18 U.S.C. § 1343 to scientific conclusions drawn from accurate data violates the First Amendment's proscription against viewpoint discrimination, or renders the statute, as applied, unconstitutionally vague.

Please tell me I'm misreading that. Did somebody seriously get accused of fraud for a scientific opinion?


It goes to credibility but the key point is, yes, "opinion", someone got mad that their opinion doesn't shake out like this other guy's and everybody is believing the other guy so first guy is mad.

You can take a set of statistics and make them say just about anything, if you leave out certain "non-worth" calculations.........much like fauxnews does most of the time.  This is one of those times.
 
2013-12-14 01:39:44 PM  
At first I thought it was a gag web site.
 
2013-12-14 01:43:36 PM  
Maybe I'm just dumb or hung over or something but that made no sense to me.
 
2013-12-14 01:44:01 PM  

The Gordie Howe Hat Trick: The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.


Because that will keep scientists and corporations from lying to shareholders.
 
2013-12-14 01:51:59 PM  

oldwolf49: Fabric_Man: From TFA:
Issue: (1) Whether a conclusion about the meaning of scientific data, one on which scientists may reasonably disagree, satisfies the element of a "false or fraudulent" statement under the wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343; and (2) whether applying 18 U.S.C. § 1343 to scientific conclusions drawn from accurate data violates the First Amendment's proscription against viewpoint discrimination, or renders the statute, as applied, unconstitutionally vague.

Please tell me I'm misreading that. Did somebody seriously get accused of fraud for a scientific opinion?

It goes to credibility but the key point is, yes, "opinion", someone got mad that their opinion doesn't shake out like this other guy's and everybody is believing the other guy so first guy is mad.


Yeah, somebody got mad when this guy did a medical trial to see if his drug would help people with a fatal and relatively common disease, found out that it didn't work, massaged the data to conceal the fact that it didn't work, and then sent out his sales team with a press release talking about how great the drug was and how everyone who gave him money would end up as bazillionaires because look at how his trial turned out. Clearly it's all about opinion, and not, say, fraud.
 
2013-12-14 01:53:10 PM  

The Gordie Howe Hat Trick: The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.


Which was done.

thechristiannerd.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
 
2013-12-14 01:53:42 PM  
Here's an article about the case.
 
2013-12-14 01:56:20 PM  
I'll see your lawyers and raise you a 3rd Level Guild Navigator.
 
jrl
2013-12-14 02:09:04 PM  

Theaetetus: oldwolf49: Fabric_Man: From TFA:
Issue: (1) Whether a conclusion about the meaning of scientific data, one on which scientists may reasonably disagree, satisfies the element of a "false or fraudulent" statement under the wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343; and (2) whether applying 18 U.S.C. § 1343 to scientific conclusions drawn from accurate data violates the First Amendment's proscription against viewpoint discrimination, or renders the statute, as applied, unconstitutionally vague.

Please tell me I'm misreading that. Did somebody seriously get accused of fraud for a scientific opinion?

It goes to credibility but the key point is, yes, "opinion", someone got mad that their opinion doesn't shake out like this other guy's and everybody is believing the other guy so first guy is mad.

Yeah, somebody got mad when this guy did a medical trial to see if his drug would help people with a fatal and relatively common disease, found out that it didn't work, massaged the data to conceal the fact that it didn't work, and then sent out his sales team with a press release talking about how great the drug was and how everyone who gave him money would end up as bazillionaires because look at how his trial turned out. Clearly it's all about opinion, and not, say, fraud.


This looks like something where an obviously sleazy move got prosecuted in a way that
resulted in a penalty getting applied where it was not clear that it should in fact apply.
I'm not saying that the guy should "get off", but there is a real question as to whether the
act in question should be applied in this way.

If it's illegal to make confident statements based on slim evidence, and to profit from them
due in part to interstate wire communication, then there are lots of televangelists and
politicians who have been doing this for years that need to be prosecuted for it.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-12-14 02:09:34 PM  
Fabric_Man

This is not a good faith disagreement over science. Follow the link to the 9th Circuit opinion to learn more. Defendant put out a press release misrepresenting the results of a clinical trial. There was reason to believe intentional misrepresentation with the goal of persuading doctors to prescribe more drugs.
 
2013-12-14 02:15:15 PM  

Theaetetus: Here's an article about the case.


From your article:

This means that Dr. Harkonen was not convicted just because the government did not agree with his interpretation of the clinical trial results.  Instead, he was convicted because a jury found that he intentionally and knowingly sought to defraud someone (presumably, investors) through the statements made in the press release

This is a pandora's box that shouldn't be opened SCOTUS in this case. If anything, creationists should be worried because they're basically doing what Dr. Harkonen is doing: denying facts to mislead people.
 
jrl
2013-12-14 02:17:29 PM  

Theaetetus: Here's an article about the case.


Not bad! And I sort of agree that this is a lame appeal where the petitioner hopes
to ride a sled pulled by a technicality that is not really the issue in his conviction.

That said, I analyze things and post my opinions from time to time, and although
I'm not sure about step 2, there is some chance of step 3 == profit, which makes
me a little bit uncomfortable about the specific language in the Act under question.
 
2013-12-14 02:19:34 PM  

jrl: This looks like something where an obviously sleazy move got prosecuted in a way that
resulted in a penalty getting applied where it was not clear that it should in fact apply.
I'm not saying that the guy should "get off", but there is a real question as to whether the
act in question should be applied in this way.


Not according to the ninth circuit, there isn't. And the Supreme Court hasn't taken this petition, and frankly, is unlikely to do so. And yeah, the statute was originally written to address exactly this sort of stuff, so it's not like they're reaching to apply it, like when they use an antiterrorism statute to address medical marijuana sales or something. This statute was about commercial fraud.

If it's illegal to make confident statements based on slim evidence, and to profit from them
due in part to interstate wire communication, then there are lots of televangelists and
politicians who have been doing this for years that need to be prosecuted for it.


If only there were some differentiating thing between religious and political speech, and commercial speech that would mean that the former is subject to strict protections under the first amendment, while the latter may be regulated to prevent fraud...
 
2013-12-14 02:19:53 PM  
It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the juice of Sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, stains become a warning.
It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
 
2013-12-14 02:21:10 PM  
Uh oh, what did Kimi do now?

/leave me alone, I know what I am doing.
 
2013-12-14 02:21:42 PM  

jrl: That said, I analyze things and post my opinions from time to time, and although
I'm not sure about step 2, there is some chance of step 3 == profit, which makes
me a little bit uncomfortable about the specific language in the Act under question.


The profit must be a direct and proximate result of the fraud. It's not like "I make some half truths and lies and that gets me elected to political office and that results in lucrative speaking engagements when I retire, hence profit," but "people invested in my business as a direct results of me lying about my drug trials."
 
2013-12-14 02:25:44 PM  
The spice must flow.
 
2013-12-14 02:26:35 PM  

Lord Jubjub: And he is the CEO of the company


A job creator? Then hes clearly Not Guilty.
 
jrl
2013-12-14 02:29:14 PM  

Theaetetus: jrl: That said, I analyze things and post my opinions from time to time, and although
I'm not sure about step 2, there is some chance of step 3 == profit, which makes
me a little bit uncomfortable about the specific language in the Act under question.

The profit must be a direct and proximate result of the fraud. It's not like "I make some half truths and lies and that gets me elected to political office and that results in lucrative speaking engagements when I retire, hence profit," but "people invested in my business as a direct results of me lying about my drug trials."


OK you are right I'm reaching there. And with a p value of 0.52, meaning something
like "there is a 52% chance that this was a fluke", it's clear there is some distance between
what I might worry about and what this petitioner seems to have done.

Don't reraise all in without the pocket aces...
 
2013-12-14 02:30:32 PM  
Free Wellington Yueh!
 
2013-12-14 02:36:25 PM  
He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing.
 
2013-12-14 02:38:22 PM  

Schmerd1948: Subby , you worm. What chew think you doin'?


Stilgar, do we have wormsign?
 
2013-12-14 02:51:17 PM  

worlddan: Because People in power are Stupid: When I submit threads with this type of headline the modmins are all:

[img.pandawhale.com image 500x190]

I know right. I can't believe they linked to a SCOTUSblog case listing. It's not even a news article and I have no clue as to how the headline relates to the article without reading the briefs, which is way to much work on a Saturday morning.


encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.comView Full Size
 
2013-12-14 03:09:17 PM  

The Gordie Howe Hat Trick: kill all


CADE

    Let me alone. Dost thou use to write thy name? or
    hast thou a mark to thyself, like an honest
    plain-dealing man?

CLERK

    Sir, I thank God, I have been so well brought up
    that I can write my name.

ALL

    He hath confessed: away with him! he's a villain
    and a traitor.
 
2013-12-14 03:19:34 PM  
dropline.netView Full Size
 
2013-12-14 03:20:45 PM  

JohnAnnArbor: [dropline.net image 220x200]


OK, fine:
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2013-12-14 03:52:27 PM  
It's JUDGMENT, you ignoramus.
 
2013-12-14 04:21:35 PM  

Fabric_Man: From TFA:
Issue: (1) Whether a conclusion about the meaning of scientific data, one on which scientists may reasonably disagree, satisfies the element of a "false or fraudulent" statement under the wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343; and (2) whether applying 18 U.S.C. § 1343 to scientific conclusions drawn from accurate data violates the First Amendment's proscription against viewpoint discrimination, or renders the statute, as applied, unconstitutionally vague.

Please tell me I'm misreading that. Did somebody seriously get accused of fraud for a scientific opinion?


sorry fabric you read that completely correct. and it has gone through a few appellate courts where  the accusation has held. this is the filing to a higher court
 
2013-12-14 04:50:41 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: When I submit threads with this type of headline the modmins are all:

[img.pandawhale.com image 500x190]


Your nick might have something to do with that.
 
2013-12-14 06:00:18 PM  

BigChad: It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the juice of Sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, stains become a warning.
It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.


It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion.
It is by the of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, shaking becomes a warning.
It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion.
 
2013-12-14 07:39:53 PM  

Pointy Tail of Satan: Sounds like some kind of Fox News issue. You know, like having their so called "scientist" shrills claiming "they is no global warming!"


"Shrills"? Really?
 
2013-12-14 10:22:21 PM  
I wish my last name was Harkonen.  That would be totally biatchin

I wonder if he pronounces his name like in the David Lynch movie or like how they pronounce it in the SciFi Channel min-series.
 
2013-12-15 03:04:52 AM  
I bought a 4 pack movie from Walmart almost a year ago, it contained Flash Gordon, Battlestar Galactica (original theater version), the Last Starfighter and Dune.. and the REASON I bought this was for the Flash Gordon and DUNE.. I watched Flash the first night I got the set.. haven't even touched it since... keep meaning to watch Dune, but just don't.. I fail I know.. lol
 
2013-12-15 03:39:28 PM  

SirEattonHogg: I wish my last name was Harkonen.  That would be totally biatchin

I wonder if he pronounces his name like in the David Lynch movie or like how they pronounce it in the SciFi Channel min-series.


Look up "Harkonnen" at anywho.com.  Worth a chuckle.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report