News item: Pfizer forbids sale of its products for use in executions.
Now, regardless of your position on lethal injection (which, personally, I regard as an abomination; if you're going to kill somebody, use a more straightforward approach and skip the pseudo-medical rigamarole), there's a serious issue here.
If you sell something, it thereafter belong to the buyer, right? You no longer have any rights to it? (Unless it's a work of art in Europe, or something.)
So how can a Big Pharma company impose post-sale restrictions on its products? I mean, next thing you know, companies with highly lucrative out-of-patent drugs would be blocking their sale to potential competitors, making bioequivalance testing impossible and keeping cheap generics off the market.
Oh, wait. They do that already, don't they? How is this legal? It violates one the the basic principles of commerce; doesn't it also violate some antitrust law? If not, why not?
(I've run across something similar with European chip vendors, and fine print in datasheets saying "not for use in weapon systems." If I design the chip into a weapon system, buy the parts from a distributor on the 'Net, build the thing, and sell it, I've, what, violated some contract I never signed? But, unlike a pharma company, the chip company doesn't have the supply chain locked down.)