This supposedly is a big win for the American Consumer, who is angry about Big Rx power over everyone and everything connected with "health care" in America.
But thinking that is the same as thinking it's the job of the SCOTUS to act as social friction mediator who favors the cause of the moment.
Who is Gilead Pharmaceutical?
Is it possible that even if Merck "lied to the court" and "lied to Gilead," Gilead lies to many others as it goes about its daily operations?
Is it possible that every party dragged into court can be found "lying" if the aim of the court is to find a "liar" and/or a "lie"?
How often does the court look for "lying"? When was the last time you read a big sea-changing legal opinion suggesting a new wave of enhanced prosecutions on perjury charges?
Is it possible that Judge Freeman's position/opinion is not really cleaning up the Big Rx patent field, but actually is just giving a big birthday or other holiday gift to Gilead?
How well-versed are you, reader, in the US patent and trademark laws? in their enforcement? in the judicial process overseeing the frictions and disagreements among patent holders, patent applicants and the USPTO?
Are you in any position to believe the linked story? Are you in a position to discern where it shows bias?
It may just be easier to say, "hallelujah, Merck gets rapped on the nose AND knuckles, and finally ethical practice is restored in Big Rx, with the underdog Gilead coming out on top!"
It may be easier than asking whether Gilead is a flea.
Or asking whether Freeman is a veterinarian, or just someone who plays one on teevee.