As far as I remember, his answer was that (1) the product was underpriced and it's a company's duty to get as much profit as possible for their shareholders etc

As far as I remember, his answer was that (1) the product was underpriced and it's a company's duty to get as much profit as possible for their shareholders etc. and (2) the product itself was very cheap and they offered it for free for anyone without insurance – apparently about 40% of it was given away this way. Now, he might just be a charismatic psychopath, but if this is true it does indeed put him in quite a different light. edit: yes, it might've been 60% instead of 40%, I wanted to err on the side of caution :)