A pharmaceutical company has to work within a set of laws that limit what it can sell. These were developed in large part because "pure capitalism" didn't work

A pharmaceutical company has to work within a set of laws that limit what it can sell. These were developed in large part because "pure capitalism" didn't work for most cases of drug development. The elixir sulfanilamide poisoning crisis is quite instructive, as is the history of snake oil, quack medicine, and radium cure-alls. These regulations mean pharmaceutical development is far from being a free market. Some drugs, like colchicine and progesterone, were developed decades ago. The FDA would like them to be analyzed under the latest regulations, and is willing to grant market exclusivity as a way to entice companies to do this. A generic producer must also prove that their formulation is identical to the formulation which was granted FDA approval. Turing used a closed distribution model, where only patients could get access to the drugs, not potential competitors. As such, the companies did not "own the product", as you suggest. Not even the pseudo-ownership of controlling a limited patent monopoly. You can interpret this a lousy decisions by the FDA that have nothing to do with capitalism. Which is correct. But the FDA itself was put in place for two reasons: 1) pure capitalism has a track record of failing in this area, and 2) traditionally the companies in this field knew to be greedy but not too greedy, so the rules weren't set up for 'horrible' rule-lawyers. Because if they were too greedy, the lawmakers could and will change the laws again. So no, it's not illegal. But since the profits are made inside a highly regulated marketplace, it's best to not piss off the people who decide the regulations.