You are right about that. He is really only protected by the high cost of F.D.A. approval for generic drugs. In many ways Shkreli showed us the flaws and hypo

You are right about that. He is really only protected by the high cost of F.D.A. approval for generic drugs. In many ways Shkreli showed us the flaws and hypocrisy in our system, and helped show us what we need to do to create a better one. But I don't think that was his intended purpose. And it doesn't change my original argument.... Not giving to charity, is not the same thing as profiting from the exploration of vulnerable people, even if both things are technically legal. Edit: Rayiner, I can't reply to your comment but your analogy is completely wrong. It's like a Fire Department used to put out house fires for $50. And Martin identified one street on the outskirts of town that vulnerable, and he purchased the contract to protect that street from the Fire Department... and now charges them $10,000 for putting out fires. It's not 'the same' as the guy who does nothing. He didn't INVENT helping them, like every one of these crazy analogies suggest. They were being helped much better before he got there and he made the situation a lot worse for them. You can't ignore that context and set it up as a choice between "Not being helped" or "Being helped for an exorbitant price".