The Details:
The U.S. Supreme Court made a ruling on Thursday (June 23) on a case of pharmaceutical information in Vermont.
The case involved the sale of prescribing information (only what doctor prescribed what drug, not to whom) from pharmacies to "data miners," who would in turn compile the information and sell it back to pharmaceutical manufacturers, who would in turn use the information to fine tune their marketing strategies to doctors.
Vermont law made the above practice illegal, but allowed the sale of prescribing information for other non-marketing reasons, such as health research.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Vermont law was invalid since it unconstitutionally burdened the pharmaceutical manufacturer's free speech, i.e. marketing, in comparison to the other entities who had access to the information.
My Feelings:
This is a tough one in my opinion. If the law allows one entity to receive the information, but bans another, it is by definition unfair and discriminatory. But, at what point does that unfairness or discrimination become unconstitutional?
What I find most interesting, and maybe slightly disturbing, is that the acquisition of information is considered part of free speech. Creation and dissemination, yes, but acquisition?
